ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 9213/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Environmental Medical Association, 4, Cabin No.3, Prakuti Polyclinic, S.V. Road, Jain Chambers, Mumbai - 400050 ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer – Exemption 1(2), 6th Floor, MTNL Building, Cumbala Hill, ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400026 PAN: AAATE2772M Assessee by : Shri Poojan Mehta Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing – 28/04/2026 Date of Order - 15/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 03/10/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17.

2 ITA No. 9213/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17)

The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, during the course of hearing, the appellants have sought adjournment in respect of most of the notice(s) issued by the CIT(A) and as such, the impugned order framed by the CIT(A) is erroneous. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the following grounds of appeal - "2. The Assessing Officer erred is not issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. 3. The Income-tax Officer (Exemption) - 1(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 148 is bad in law and consequently, the assessment order needs to be quashed. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reasons for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act does not exists; accordingly, the impugned notice does not have legs to stand on and consequently, the assessment order framed ought to be quashed. 3. "The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) and sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of Rs. 3,66,80,943, being the aggregate receipts per income and expenditure account during the year under reference as unexplained money. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and sustained impugned addition, inasmuch as, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer has not correctly appreciated the provisions of section 69A of the Act.”

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the 3. material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. During the hearing, explaining the reasons for non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the learned AR submitted that out of 6 notices of hearing issued by the learned

3 ITA No. 9213/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17)

CIT(A), the assessee responded to 3 notices, i.e. issued on 25/04/2024, 20/09/2024 and 10/06/2025, and sought adjournment as necessary documents were not readily available. The learned AR submitted that the assessee could not respond to the last 2 notices issued on 04/07/2025 and 14/08/2025. In respect of the non-compliance with the last 2 notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the learned AR placed on record the affidavit of the Trustee of the assessee Trust, submitting that due to technical glitches, the adjournment request could not be filed. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee has finally received the registration under section 12AA of the Act, after multiple rejections, on 13/04/2026.

4 ITA No. 9213/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17)

adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update its Email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 15/05/2026 Prabhat

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai.