YOGESH JAGDISHJI KANODIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [for

short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 04.12.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21.

perused. The Ld. Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’) of the assessee submits

that, there is one day delay in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR

submits that the appeal fee was filed on 28.02.2026. However, the appeal

could not be uploaded on Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Portal (ITAT Portal)

despite repeated efforts. Ultimately, the appeal could be filed only on

01.03.2026. The delay in filling the appeal is not intentional. On merits of the

case, the Ld.AR submits that, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order for the want of submission. The Ld. AR submits that, the assessee obtained various

adjournments in response to various notices issued by Ld.CIT(A). However,

when the assessee in response to the notice issued by ld CIT(A)/NFAC tried to

upload the submission , he was denied ‘access’. The assessee immediately

raised grievances which were resolved later on. In the mean time, the

Ld.CIT(A) passed the order. The assessee has a good case on merit and is

likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to contest the case on

merit before Ld.CIT(A).

DR’) for the revenue submits that, the assessee is a habitual defaulter. No

compliance was made before the Assessing Officer (‘AO’). Assessment was

completed under Section 144. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed more than seven

opportunities to furnish written submissions and relevant evidence but the

assessee instead of furnishing complete details and evidence, tried to linger on

the case and obtained repeated adjournment. Thus, the assessee does not

deserve further leniency or opportunity. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

On the issue of the delay of one day, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits

that, he has no objection in condoning the delay and in case the Bench is of

the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity, the same may be

allowed only on the payment of heavy cost.

undertake on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future. On

confronting about the objection of the Ld. DR for the revenue for imposing cost, the Ld. AR submits that, sub-nominal cost may be imposed. Though, the

assessee has explained his reason for non-responding.

considering the plea of Ld. AR of the assessee for condoning one day delay in

filing appeal before Tribunal. Considering the explanation of ld AR of the

assessee, which we have recorded earlier, we find that there is no intentional

or deliberate delay. Hence, the delay of one day in filing appeal before Tribunal

is condoned. Now, adverting to the merit of the case.

The AO while passing the assessment order made an addition of

Rs.3,18,50,1010/- on account of unexplained expenditure and addition of Rs.

2,08,31,389/- as business income by estimating profit @ of 10% of

turnover, thereby made total additions of Rs. 5,26,81,490/- The Ld.

CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the want of submission. Before us the Ld. AR

of the assessee submits that, the assessee tired to upload his submission on

25.11.2025 but due to “ACCESS DENIED” the submission could not be

uploaded on ITBA Portal. To substantiate such facts, the assessee has placed

on record the screenshot of ITBA Portal. However, on perusal of the

assessment order and the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that both the lower

authorities have issued the number of show cause notice to make timely

compliance. However, the assessee despite availing numerous opportunity

failed to submit necessary details and submissions. Resultantly, the lower

authorities passed the order for the want of submission Now, before us the Ld.

AR prayed for one more opportunity. Though, we find that sufficient

opportunity was given to the assessee by lower authorities, yet keeping in view

the facts that substantial rights of the assessee are involve in the present case

and the lower authorities have made total additions of more than five crore,

hence keeping in view of the principle of natural justice the assessee is given

one more opportunity to contest the case on merits, but subject to payment of

costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited into Miscellaneous A/c of Income Tax

Department. Needless to direct that, the Ld.CIT(A) shall allow reasonable

opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has also directed to be more

vigilant in future in making timely compliances. In the result, grounds of the

appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 08.07.2026 at the time of hearing.

S Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 08/07/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); By Order (4) The DR, ITAT Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai