KANCHAN HARSHAD BONGALE,BNADRA EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 1 1MUMBAI, LALBAUG PAREL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 40/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kanchan Harshad Bongale, Vs. ITO-23(1)(1), Mumbai 1001, Building no. 13, 508, 5th Floor, Piramal Khernagar, Mumbai, Bandra Chambers, Lal Baug, (East), S.O. Mumbai, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra PAN/GIR No. AEBPB8223P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri Mandar Vaidya, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 07.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment years 2020-21. The following grounds raised by the Assessee are reproduced below: Ground No.1: The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in not adjudicating the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Appellant, by relying upon section 151A & the decision of the Hon’ble

2 ITA No. 40/Mum/2026

Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bom.) Ground No.2: It is submitted that the notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A, issued by the JAO is bad & illegal the notice ought to have been issued by the Faceless unit. Ground No.3: Without prejudice the Id. CIT(A) fell in error of law in not setting aside the assessment & restoring the same to the AO, by invoking the power under the proviso to sec. 251(1)(a) of the Act, inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2024. Ground No. 4: The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the insight information does record a finding that the amount from the bank account of the assessee is transferred to the Treasury Officer, thereby lending credence the Appellant's submissions that she is a State Government Authorised Stamp Vendor. Ground No.5: The Id. CIT was not justified in ignoring the fact that the cash deposits represented cash sales of the assessee from out of her business as a stamp vendor, were ere part of turnover of the assesse and hence the deposits were made in the current account with the bank. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before us, for which an affidavit has been placed on record. The same is reproduced herein below:

1) I am a small-time retailer, running a business of an authorised/licensed stamp vendor for the Govt. of Maharashtra. In the said business, I buy stamps, stamp papers from the Govt. of Maharashtra and sell the same in retail. And for this service, I receive a small commission from the Govt. of Maharashtra. 2) I say & submit that in my line of business, the sale transactions predominantly take place in cash since most retail customers buy in cash and hence cash generated in sales, is regularly deposited in bank(s).

3 ITA No. 40/Mum/2026

3) During F.Y. 2019-20, I had deposited a total of Rs. 8,22,98,868/ in my Current account with the Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank (Current account being A/c no. СС-10045). 4) I say that for A.Y. 2020-21, my assessment was reopened and during the course of the assessment proceedings, various queries were raised by the Ld. AO vis-à-vis cash deposits. 5) I say & submit that the Assessment Order in my case was passed by the Ld./Assessing Officer on 4th February 2025, I say & submit that I had filed an appeal against the Assessment Order before the Ld. CIT(Appeals-NFAC). 6) 1 say & submit that I did not receive any notices for hearing/filing submissions from the office of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC and the Ld. CIT(A) passed his order dated 9th September 2025, which was NEITHER served electronically nor physically on the me. I further say that the notices/order was not even served on the e-mail id of my chartered accountant. I further say & submit that I had uploaded my Affidavit towards condonation of delay, before the Ld. CIT(A) on 9th September 2025. 7) I say that the order of the Ld. CIT(A-NFAC) was NOT served and/or otherwise communicated to me in any manner and hence I was not aware that such an order had been passed. I say that it was only when the Ld. AO issued me a notice for recovery dated......December 2025, that I was made aware that the Ld. CIT(A) has already disposed off my appeal since the Ld. AO stated in the said communication that the CIT(A) has dismissed my appeal. 8) My Chartered Accountant (CA) Mr. Pratik Parab, on learning of the recovery notice from the AO, accessed the Income-tax portal to check whether the order of the CIT(A) was uploaded. It was only at that time he found the order which was seen uploaded on the portal. 9) I say & submit that it was not realized until then that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has already passed the order. And hence, I could not file any appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 1 say that, thereafter I immediately took steps to send the papers to my consultant/Advocate for drafting the appeal. 10) I say & submit that there cannot be said to be any delay in filing the appeal, since I have not been served with the order. Without prejudice to the above, if it is held that there is delay

4 ITA No. 40/Mum/2026

in filing the appeal, I pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and oblige, 3. Further, we noticed that Assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) and detailed reasoning has already been mentioned by the Assessee in the accompanied affidavit contending the reasons of nonappearance before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the Assessee and considering the fact that the Assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the facts and keeping in view the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more 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 set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh by providing adequate opportunity of hearing, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the Assessee which shall be deposited in the account of Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on the 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.

5 ITA No. 40/Mum/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/04/2026 Ankit, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai