NAGA NAVEEN KUMAR POLAVARAPU,HYDERABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1696/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2026AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and present their case despite opportunities. The Tribunal also noted the inordinate delay in filing appeals before both the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 774 days. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, which also had a delay of 48 days. The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple hearing dates, including the final date.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated without proper jurisdiction and mandatory notices, and the dismissal of appeals due to significant delays without sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 69,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1696/MUM/2026 (AY: 2012-13) Naga Naveen Kumar Polavarapu vs. ITO, WARD 42(2)(4), E-Block Flat No-101, Aditya Empress Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Towers, Shaikρet Nala. Golconda Post, Hyderabad-500008. PAN/GIR No: ALBPP8205G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Nitin Kulkarni (SR DR) Date of Hearing 22.07.2026 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 26.09.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

" 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order is erroneous in facts and law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 on 22.03.2019, which was served on the appellant. However, the said notice was issued without proper jurisdiction, as the appellant is a Non-resident, while the notice was issued by the ITO Ward 35(2)(4), Mumbai, which lacks jurisdiction over the appellant's case Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

3.

The order of the lower authorities erred in not issuing notice u/s proceedings 143(2) of the income tax act which is mandatory for completing the assessment. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in completing the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the appellant had filed the return of income on 17.07.2024 in response to notice under Section 148. The omission to issue such notice renders the entire assessment invalid and void ab initio as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 774 days without properly appreciating that the knowledge of the assessment order, and not its actual service, constitutes sufficient cause for delay under Section 249(3). The order of dismissal is mechanical and against the principles of natural justice. 6. The assessment order dated 16. 12 2019 was never served upon the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant became aware of the assessment only upon receipt of the subsequent penalty order. Hence, the delay in filing appeal was due to lack of knowledge of the assessment order, constituting a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 249(3). 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. IΠΟ [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi) has held that mere generation of notice on ITBA software does not amount to issuance, and service is complete only upon due dispatch. Similarly, where the assessee becomes aware of the order later through the portal or penalty proceedings, the date of such knowledge shall be treated as the date of service. Hence, the appellant's case squarely falls within this principle. 8. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on limitation without verifying the service of assessment order and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard is ex-facie illegal and non- maintainable under law”

3.

The case was posted for hearing on 23.04.2026, 19.05.2026, 21.05.2026,

15.06.2026, 17.06.2026 and 22.07.2026. None appeared on behalf of the assessee

on all thee dates except on 15.06.2026. The case was subsequently posted for

hearing on 17.06.2026 and 22.07.2026. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 22.07.2026 nor any request for adjournment nor written submission was filed. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings before us. The case is, accordingly, decided on the basis of materials available on record. 4. There is a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. We also find that there was delay of 774 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons given by the assessee was not found to be convincing and hence, the inordinate delay of 774 days was not condoned and appeal was dismissed as not admitted by the CIT(A). We also find that though there is delay of 48 days, the appellant in Form 36 has stated that there is no delay. He did not attach application seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, we find that there was no genuine reason and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time allowed under the Act. Hence, the delay is not condoned. 5. Be that as it may, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits also. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee did not file return of income for the AY 2012- 13. Based on the information received from NMS (Non filler data) from the ITD system, it was noted that the assessee had entered into security transactions of Rs.12,46,93,571/- and received salary of Rs.16,93,232/-. Hence, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.03.2019. In response, the assessee e- filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.7,06,220/-. The AO added 0.25% of the share transaction of Rs.12,46,93,571/- amounting to Rs.3,11,734/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. He also added excess salary of Rs.1,05,936/- to the total income. The total income was assessed at Rs.11,23,890/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A),

which was late by 774 days. The CIT(A) did not find the reasons given by the assessee

for condonation of delay as convincing and dismissed the appeal as not admitted.

7.

Aggrieved by the order CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. As would be clear from the discussion made earlier, the assessee was granted adequate opportunity of hearing but he did not appear before the Tribunal on the final date of hearing. He has also not requested for adjournment nor filed any written submission along with relevant details/evidences. It is thus clear that the appellant has no specific submissions in support of the grounds raised in the appeal. It is well settled that the Tribunal has the inherent power to dismiss the appeal if the appellant/revenue does not represent its case despite opportunity granted to him. Therefore, without delving further, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reasons for non-appearance/compliance/prosecution. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

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 PCIT/CIT 4. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →