BHAKTI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5056/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while not condoning the Assessee's non-compliance, decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice, subject to the Assessee paying costs.

What were the facts?

The Assessee failed to comply with notices from the Ld. Commissioner, leading to an ex parte assessment order with additions under Sections 69C and 68. The Ld. Commissioner then set aside the assessment order and remanded it back to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner should have adjudicated the appeal on merits despite the Assessee's non-compliance, and the appropriateness of remanding the case for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 68,Section 250,Section 251(1),Section 153(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE JAGADISH

Pronounced: 24.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are that, despite being afforded three opportunities, the Assessee failed to comply with the notices issued

ITA No.5056/MUM/2026 Bhakti Enterprises by the Ld. Commissioner. Consequently, having been left with no other option, the Ld. Commissioner proceeded to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) completing the assessment at an income of Rs.23,41,439/- after making an addition of Rs.13,41,439/- under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure and a further addition of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit.

The Ld. Commissioner, ultimately, in exercise of the powers entrusted under section 251(1) of the Act, set aside the assessment order and remanded the case to the file of the AO for framing the assessment afresh in accordance with law and within the time prescribed under section 153(3) of the Act.

3.

Thus, the Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal. However, despite sending the notice for the date fixed for hearing, neither has anyone appeared on behalf of the Assessee nor has any application seeking adjournment been filed. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal ex parte, qua the Assessee.

4.

We observe from the record that the Assessee, by filing the present appeal, contends that the assessment order was also passed ex parte and, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits himself. Though, considering the conduct of the Assessee, we neither approve nor encourage its non-compliant attitude, as is evident from the assessment order as well as the impugned order; however, in the interest of substantial justice and for a just and proper adjudication of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. Suffice it to say that the Ld. Commissioner shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, subject to the Assessee depositing costs of Rs. 11,000/- with

ITA No.5056/MUM/2026 Bhakti Enterprises the Revenue Department under the head “Other Receipts” within 15 days from the date of this order.

We further clarify that, in the event of any subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any further leniency.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →