BHUJANG JANKIRAM MUNDHE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non-appearance. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that an assessment order was passed on 28.01.2025 in the case of the assessee u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act. An appeal was preferred before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

Learned Counsel submitted that in Form 35, the assessee had mentioned the email ID for service of notice as “bj.mundhe@gmail.com”. However, the notices were sent to “narendraksinghal@yahoo.com” and “nksinghal210@yahoo.com” by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the fact that the notices were sent to different email IDs than the one mentioned in Form 35, the assessee could not respond to the notices of hearing issued u/s 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A). The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on 21.02.2026, the assessee received an email from Canara Bank informing that his account had been blocked. At that point in time, on inquiry by the assessee, he came to know of the passing of an order by the learned CIT(A) confirming the assessment order and thus was required to pay the demand raised pursuant to the said assessment order. Thus, the assessee filed an appeal on 25.03.2026.

Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessment order was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment and also since the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- appearance, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment to examine the additional evidences which the assessee has placed on record today by way of purchase agreement, sale agreement, bank statements of State Bank of India and Canara Bank, income tax computation, return, acknowledgment and financial statements of NextGen Mapping along with loan confirmation. Learned Counsel submitted that as these documents would be necessary for adjudication of the issue, therefore, the assessee is praying for restoration of the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment on considering the documents now available with the assessee.

Learned DR has no serious objection if the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

Considering the rival submissions, perusing the orders of the authorities below and the material placed before us, we are of the considered view that the issues in appeal should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Thus, we restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing fresh assessment on the issues in appeal in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.