AKRUTI ANIL MISTRY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3332/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2019-203 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the notice was sent to an incorrect email address, and thus, the assessee was not properly served. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the notice of appeal was not served on their correct email address, leading to a lack of opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard due to improper service of notice. The validity of the reopening proceedings and subsequent additions were also contested.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 148,Section 148A,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated

13.01.2026for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The assessee has raised following

grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the case of the appellant by issue of notice u/s 148/148A of the Act which is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ld. A.O. in re-opening the case of the appellant which is without proper satisfaction, bad in law and without jurisdiction, for the reasons mentioned in impugned order or otherwise.

ITA No. 3332/Mum/2026 Akruti Anil Mistry (AY 2017-18)

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in disposing the objection by passing the order u/s 148A(d) dated 17.04.2023 in an arbitrary manner. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act in contravention to the provision of section 148A of the Act, thereby, making consequential reassessment order as illegal, bad in law or otherwise void-ab-initio.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in alleging that credit entries found in the bank accounts of the appellant are unexplained, thereby invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.

7.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the ld. A.O. in making the addition of Rs. 19,63,378/ on account of alleged unexplained credit entries, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.

8.

The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. The appellant prays the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions/disallowances made by the Learned Assessing Officer, which are confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)”

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The

ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that notice of appeal

was not served on the assessee. On verification from details of ITBA portal, it

was found that notice was sent on e-mail that is ramu.niranjana@gmail.com.

Though, the assessee while filing first appeal has given different e-mail that is

aks5244@gmail.com on Form 35, for the purpose of service of notice. Thus, the

matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A), with the liberty to the assessee

to file requisite submissions.

3.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that he has no objection if

the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for res-adjudication on merit.

ITA No. 3332/Mum/2026 Akruti Anil Mistry (AY 2017-18)

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the partiesand have gone

through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that ld CIT(A) issued

notice through ITBA portal through e-mail address “ramu.niranjana@gmail.com”

which does not belong to the assessee, rather the assessee has provided e-mail

aks5244@gmail.com in Form 35 for the purpose of notice or other

communication for first appeal. Considering the fact that notice was not served

properly on the assessee, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the

matter to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer to consider all such evidences

and pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing

the order, the CIT(A) shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

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

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 20/05/2026 at the time of hearing.

/- S/- /- SSd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 20/05/2026 Biswajit 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

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →