ADITYA SHIVRATAN PANSARI ,ANDHERI EAST vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, LALBAG

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

07.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised following

grounds of appeal:

“1. The authorities below have erred in making an addition / sustaining addition of Rs. 8,66,231 being sale value of appellant's investment in shares of ACI Infocom Limited.

a. The authorities below have erred in making addition / sustaining addition without any enquiry having been conducted at all and only on the basis of so-called information from investigation wing.

b. The authorities below have erred in making an addition / sustaining addition without any section being specified in the assessment order. c. The authorities below have erred in making an addition / sustaining addition without finding any fault in the full range of supporting documentation furnished by the appellant and without appreciating the fact that the appellant had earned short

Aditya ShivratanPansari (AY: 2013-14) ITA No. 136/Mum/2026

term capital gain in the script and not LTCG as repeatedly mentioned in the assessment order.

a. The learned assessing officer has failed to specify as to how the appellant had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, which he was mandated to do in view of the First proviso to section 147.

b. The learned assessing officer has failed to independently apply his mind when reopening only on the basis of the so called report from the investigation wing.

c. The learned assessing officer has not gone through the earlier records of assessment u/s 143(3) in which the then assessing officer had looked into the capital gains earned by the appellant and thus the reassessment was only a change of opinion.

d. The learned assessing officer has failed to make due enquiries with the officer from whom the so called report was received to ascertain whether reassessment u/s 147/148 is required or assessment u/s 153C is required.

Aditya ShivratanPansari (AY: 2013-14) ITA No. 136/Mum/2026 7. The authorities below have erred in not reducing the cost of shares purchased from the sale value of the shares.

The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or delete any grounds during the pendency of appeal.

The appellant requests that the above grounds may please be treated as being without prejudice to each other.”

ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is a

delay of 68 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit

of assessee explain the delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that

subsequent to filing of appeal nephew of assessee was paralyzed in the month of

May, 2025. The assessee was busy in medical treatment of his nephew. The

assessee could not access / realised about e-mail or SMS alert. Consequently, the

appeal was dismissed for the want of submission. The assessee came to know

when notice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was served upon the assessee.

In the last week of December, 2025. The assessee immediately filed present

appeal. The assessee has good case on merit and likely to succeed if one more

opportunity is given to the assessee. On merits, the ld. AR of the assessee

submits that assessment was also completed under section 144 for the want of

reply. The matter may be restored to the file of AO instead of ld. CIT(A), the ld.

CIT(A) may seek remand report from Assessing Officer (AO) on various

submissions of assessee. Thus, to avoid the long drawn process of remand

report, the matter may be restored to AO.

Aditya ShivratanPansari (AY: 2013-14) ITA No. 136/Mum/2026 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for

the revenue not seriously opposed the plea of ld. AR of the assessee in

condoning the delay. Considering the contents of affidavit of assessee and

submission made by ld. AR, we find that delay in filing appeal is not intentional.

Rather, the assessee is interested in pursuing his case on merit. Hence, delay in

filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case.

assessee was given opportunity to make submission. We further find that

assessment was also completed for the want of submission, therefore, we deem

it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

(JAO) to pass the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order,

the AO shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee

is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. In the

result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2026.

/- S/- /- SSd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 22/05/2026 Biswajit

Aditya ShivratanPansari (AY: 2013-14) ITA No. 136/Mum/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file.

By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai