KUNDAN TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay. The assessee claimed that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to their ex-parte assessment. The buyers in question were also found to be struck off from the MCA records.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 68 without proper notice to the assessee, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE GIRISH AGRAWAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NFAC dated 25-Mar-2025 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The under mentioned Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to one another:
FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: - Order Bad In Law And On Facts
1.1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law and on facts.
SECOND GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ERRONEOUS CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION U/S 68 Of The Act
2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer (AO). by confirming the addition of Rs. 85,00,000/- without considering the facts.
2.2. The learned CIT(A) in the order has mentioned that notices for hearing were issued on various dates through registered email id pravinbgami@gmail.com. The CIT(A), has failed to notice that in Form 35 filed before him, the email id at which the notices were to be issued has been specifically mentioned as shrigamiconstruction@gmail.com. Instead of sending notices to the email id mentioned in the Form 35, the learned CIT(A) has sent the notices to some other email id which was not accessed by the Appellant.
2.3. The learned CIT(A) in the order has alleged that "it appears that the non- appearance to notices is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. Thus, the appellant has failed to make any compliance". It may be noted that the non-appearance is not deliberate, but it is just that the Appellant was not aware that notices have been issued..
2.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that, as no response u/s 133(6) of the Act is received, the transaction is a sham. The learned CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate the fact that both the buyers have been closed and the status of the Company is strike off as per the master data available on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website.
2.5. The learned CIT(A) has cited various case laws of appellate authorities, which have upheld the addition u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case.
THIRD GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
3.1. The Appellant craves to leave to add, amend and/or alter all or any of the above Grounds of Appeal before or at any time of hearing of this Appeal.
At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of approximately 227 days in filing the appeal before us. Considering the entire factual matrix explained before us, and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., wherein it was held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities arising from a non-deliberate delay, substantial justice must prevail, we are of the considered view that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of paramount importance. Accordingly, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, who has justifiably and properly explained the delay occasioned in filing the appeal, and adopting a liberal interpretation of the expression “sufficient cause,” we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
We further noticed from the records that the assessee was proceeded against ex parte before the ld. CIT(A). In this regard, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the notices issued by the Department were sent to a different email address and, therefore, the non- appearance on the part of the assessee was neither deliberate nor intentional.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that adequate opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: RY-Sr. P.S.
Copy to:
KUNDAN TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED , 101, 1ST FLOOR, REAL TECH PARK PLOT 1 NO. 39/2, SECTOR, 30A VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA ACIT, CIRCLE 1(4), 2 AAYAKAR BHAVAN.MK ROAD,, MUMBAI- 400020, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026