ABHIJEET ASISKUMAR SENGUPTA,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 475/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

AbhijeetAsiskumarSengupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward B901, TulsiSagar, Behind 23(1)(1), Mumbai Vazirani Club, Sector 28, Room No. 508, 5th Floor, Piramal NerulNavi Mumbai, Thane 400 Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, 706. Mumbai – 400012. PAN NO. AYIPS5484L Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri. Dhiraj Mehta (Virtually appeared) Revenue by : Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)

Date of Hearing : 06/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 20/04/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, raising following grounds of appeal:

“1. Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)") erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant for alleged non-compliance with hearing notices, without ensuring valid service of such notices on the email

ITA No. 475/Mum/2026 AbhijeetAsiskumarSengupta address duly furnished by Appellant in Form No. 35, resulting in denial of effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing due and effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 67,96,698/- made be Ld. Assessing Officer ["Ld. AO"], being Long-term Capital Gains merely on sale of shares, by treating it to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"). The addition made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without adjudicating ground of validity of action of Ld. AO of re-opening assessment u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of information received from Directorate of Investigation that Appellant has allegedly indulged into taking alleged bogus entries of Long- term Capital gain during the previous year relevant to AY 2015-16. The said action of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal for alleged non-compliance, ignoring the settled legal position that an appeal before CIT(A) cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution, and that the appellate authority is statutorily bound to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of facts, evidence and judicial pronouncements on record. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 67,96,698/ made by the Ld. AO without granting the Appellant opportunity of cross-examination of the persons relied upon, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.” 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal. The learned Counsel referred to the affidavit filed by the assessee and submitted that order could not be served due to change of his email address and which was not formally updated on the income-tax portal. The alternate email address was of the Chartered Accountant who also did not communicate disposal of the appeal by

ITA No. 475/Mum/2026 AbhijeetAsiskumarSengupta the ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that he became aware of passing of the order only after receiving the text message regarding a show cause notice for levy of penalty. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as under: “5. 1 respectfully submit that the said delay has occurred due to bona fide and reasonable circumstances beyond my control and not due to any negligence, inaction or mala fide intention on my part. 6. I state that I was not aware of the passing of the appellate order by the Ld. CIT(A) as the said order and related communications were sent to my old email address abhijeetsengupta@hotmail.com, which I had stopped using long time back as the domain -@hotmail.com" was discontinued. 7. I state that I had shifted to a new email account namely abhijeet.sengupta@outlook.com. However, due to oversight, the change of email address was not formally updated on the income-tax portal. 8. I further state that the email address of my Chartered Accountant (sanjayshah@scsassociates.in) was specifically mentioned in Form No. 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for the purpose of communication relating to the appeal proceedings. However, neither the notices nor the appellate order was served on the said email address. 9. I state that I became aware of the passing of the order only upon receiving a text message on 08.01.2026 regarding issuance of show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. Immediately thereafter, I contacted my Chartered Accountant and upon accessing the income-tax portal on the same day i.e. 08.01.2026, it was noticed for the first time that the Ld. CIT(A) had already passed the appellate order dated 19.09.2025.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. In our opinion, there exists a

ITA No. 475/Mum/2026 AbhijeetAsiskumarSengupta „sufficient cause‟ for delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal. Since, the assessee has explained the delay due to bonafide reasons, we feel it appropriate to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee referred to order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee could not comply to various notices mainly for the reason of change of the email address as stated in the affidavit filed in respect of condonation of delay. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5. Thus, in the cases of repeated non compliances, various decisions of Hon. Apex Court, High Courts and ITATS have held that the assessee appeal has to be dismissed as no help can be granted to a person who himself does not make any efforts to cooperate in the dispensation of justice before the appellate forums. Thus, by repeated non-compliance by the appellant on various opportunities granted, the appellant has shown that it is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Despite several opportunities, the appellant has not shown any inclination in pursuing the appeal. In view of these facts, I have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal on the ground of complete non- compliance, as the appeal cannot be kept pending for adjudication for indefinite period especially in view of the above-noted decisions of Hon. Apex Court, Hon. High Courts and Hon. ITATS. Further, the complete non- compliances by the appellant, it is inferred that the appellant has no bona fide explanation to rebut the findings of the assessing officer and, therefore, chose not to avail the opportunities afforded to him during the appeal proceedings. The appellant could not submit any documents in support of his claim in the grounds of appeal. Further, I have gone through the assessment order and found that the assessing officer has proved through the discussions in the assessment order that the appellant has taken accommodation entry in the form of LTCG by introducing unexplained cash money of Rs. 67,96,698/-. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the addition made by the AO is justified and hence it is hereby confirmed. In view of the above facts and the judicial pronouncements, the appeal is dismissed.”

ITA No. 475/Mum/2026 AbhijeetAsiskumarSengupta 5. We are of the opinion that assessee was prevented by way of „sufficient cause‟ for not responding to the various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after considering submission of the assessee and providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the remaining grounds on merit are not required to be adjudicated upon at this stage. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/04/2026.

- Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/04/2026 Karishma J. Pawar, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//

ITA No. 475/Mum/2026 AbhijeetAsiskumarSengupta

BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai