ALTA SADGURU JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 29(3)(2) AND ANOTHER, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2595/MUM/2026 (AY: 2012-13) Alta Sadguru Joint Venture vs. ITO Ward 29(3)(2) B/1, Shree Sai Tower, Sodawala Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020.. Lane, Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400092. PAN/GIR No: AAEAS8517P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh K. Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR) (Virtual) Date of Hearing 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.07.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 03.05.2024 for the assessment year

(AY) 2012-13.

“(a) The Respondent No. 2, i.e. learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.

(b) The Appellant had not received notice of the hearing in the matter. Hence, there was a valid reason for the absence of the Appellant.

(c) The Respondent No. 2, i.e. learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,57,76,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the appellant submitting substantial evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 1

ITA No.2595/MUM/2026 Alta Sadguru Joint Venture

(d) Respondent No. I and subsequently Respondent No. 2 erred in adding opening balances as on 31/03/2011 under section 68 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which is beyond the scope of the said section as it only pertains to unexplained cash credits of the relevant previous year

(e) Respondent No. 2 failed to consider the substantial additional evidence submitted by the appellant under Rule 46A, Including account confirmations, bank statements, and ITR acknowledgements from various parties. 10 prove the genuineness of the advances and loans.

(f) Respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence regarding two major unsecured loans from Tirth Impex Pvt Ltd (Rs. 10,00,000) and Om Sai Steels Ltd (Rs. 65,00,000) during the assessment proceedings.

(g) Respondent No. 2 erred in not considering the appellant's application dated 24/01/2017 for submission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, where the appellant had explained the genuine difficulties faced in obtaining confirmations due to project delays and disputes with a former joint venture partner.” 3. There is a delay of 338 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the said affidavit, Shri Mukesh Jaswantlal Shah, member of the assessee-AOP, has stated that he was not served with the notices of hearing dated 30.12.2020, 09.11.2021, 09.08.2022 and 14.02.2024 issued by the CIT(A). He came to know about the order of CIT(A) when he received the recovery notice dated 10.01.2025. Further, there was dispute between the members of the AOP and the matter was before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Arbitrator. Due to these problems, he lost track of the present matter including order of CIT(A) and subsequently, when the demand notice was received, he filed the appeal with the help of his Advocate. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional and was beyond his control.

ITA No.2595/MUM/2026 Alta Sadguru Joint Venture Therefore, there was genuine reason and sufficient cause for non-filing of appeal within time. Further, the assessee has a good case on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merit. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has not opposed the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others-167 ITR 471 (SC), where it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay, we condone the delay. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee electronically filed return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 28.03.2013 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The assessee had disclosed creditors for various advances against facts and unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.4,14,17,000/-. The assessee did not file the required details in respect of the above matter. Hence, the AO completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.2,57,76,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices u/s 250 of the Act but the assessee failed to comply with the same or filed any written submission or documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. Hence, the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte and dismissed the appeal.

ITA No.2595/MUM/2026 Alta Sadguru Joint Venture 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order and dismissed the order without hearing the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the appellant had filed an application dated 24.01.2017 under Rule 46A for production of additional evidences, explaining the difficulties faced in obtaining confirmations due to project delays and disputes with a former JV partner. He submitted that there was sufficient cause for non- compliance before the CIT(A). He referred to the affidavit filed by Shri Mukesh Jaswantlal Shah and submitted that due to the reasons given therein, the assessee could not attend the hearing before the CIT(A). He submitted that all the details are available with the assessee and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to plead the case on merit. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of lower authorities. He would, however, have no objection if the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. The AO passed the order by making addition of Rs.2,57,76,000/- u/s 68 of the Act out of the total creditors and unsecured loans of Rs.4,14,17,000/-. The CIT(A) has upheld the addition due to non-compliance to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant had filed an application for additional evidence under Rule 46A which was not considered by the CIT(A). He also submitted that the appellant is ready with all the details and supporting evidences in respect of the grounds raised in the appeal. Considering the totality of the facts

ITA No.2595/MUM/2026 Alta Sadguru Joint Venture and the discussion made as above, we are of the considered opinion that the

assessee deserves one more opportunity in the interest of justice to explain its

case on merit. In view of these facts, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore

the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit in accordance with

law after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard of the

assessee. The ground is allowed for statistical purpose.

8.1 We make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on merit of the

case, which the CIT(A) shall independently decide as per law.

fresh adjudication, the other grounds become academic in nature and do not

require adjudication.

Order is pronounced on 23.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 23.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI 5