PRAMOD NARAYAN JANGAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO42(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1097/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to explain the source of investment and submit additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income and did not respond to statutory notices. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- for unexplained investment in debentures. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings and the addition for unexplained investment were valid, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain the source of investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM Shri Pramod Narayan Jangam,

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR
For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR &, Shri V.S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM ITA No.1097/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Shri Pramod Narayan Jangam, Income Tax Officer- (1)(4) Sri Samarth Rahivasa Seva Sangh, Kautilya Bhavan Vs. Dahisar East, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400068 PAN: ALFPJ9875Q (Appellant) : (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR Respondent by : Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR & Shri V.S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 28.04.2026 : 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) relevant to assessment year (“AY” for short) 2019-20.

2.

It is observed that the present appeal is filed belatedly with a delay of 30 days beyond the period of limitation, for which the assessee has filed an affidavit along with an application for condoning the said delay stating the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Upon perusal of the same and on hearing the rival contentions, we deem it fit to condone

ITA No.1097/Mum/2026 Shri Pramod Narayan Jangam the delay as there being “sufficient cause” explained by the assessee for the delay in filing

the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the action of AO in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) and passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act.

2.

The Appellant submits that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is against the provision of the law, ultra vires and without jurisdiction; hence, the same shall be quashed.

3.

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in making the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- being alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of which nature and source is not explained by the Appellant.

The Appellant submits that he has made investment in bonds and debentures through funds advanced by a Non-Banking Financial Corporation named as M/s. ECL Finance Limited through IPO Financing. Nature and source of investment is fully explained; hence, the addition made by the AO shall be deleted.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, and alter the above grounds of appeal.”

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his

return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide

notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 subsequent to order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated

30.03.2023. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was duly issued and served upon the assessee.

The assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer

(“Ld. AO” for short) and the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the assessment order dated

27.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act being best judgement assessment

thereby determining the total income at Rs.50,00,000/- after making an addition towards

investment in debentures amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- u/s 69C of the Act.

ITA No.1097/Mum/2026 Shri Pramod Narayan Jangam

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide

an ex-parte order dated 08.10.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground

of non-compliance by the assessee inspite of various opportunities granted.

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order of

the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is observed that the assessee has made investments in bonds and debentures through

funds advanced by NBFC M/s. ECL Finance Limited through IPO Funding Scheme. The

assessee's case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 of the act dated

30.03.2023 as the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under

consideration. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had purchased debentures

amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- and made an addition on the said investment u/s 69A of the

Act as unexplained investment where the assessee neither before the Ld. AO nor before

the Ld. CIT(A) explained the source of the said investment made in debentures.

8.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR” for short) for the assessee prayed that

the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO where

the assessee will duly explain the source of the investment.

9.

On considering the rival submissions, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the

file of the Ld. AO extending the assessee with one more opportunity to present his case

before the Ld. AO. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceeding without

ITA No.1097/Mum/2026 Shri Pramod Narayan Jangam any undue delay from his side and the Ld. AO shall pass a denovo assessment order on the

basis of the submission made by the assessee and also by admitting the additional evidences

proposed to be filed by the assessee and to decide the issue on the merits and in accordance

with law.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30.04.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) 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 →