MOHD SULEMAN ABDUL KHALIQUE MUKKHI,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No. 981/SRT/2024 & ITA No. 982/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Vs I.T.O., Khalique Mukkhi, Ward-3, B/302, Sahil Appartment, Navsari. Near Shankar Electronics, Station Road, Bilimora, Navsari-396321 (Gujarat) PAN: ARIPM 9811 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri Shaunak Zaveri, C.A. Revenue Represented by : Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 18/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short, ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] dated 21/04/2023 and 10/10/2023 for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Both the appeals have common facts and grounds, therefore, both appeals were clubbed and heard together and being decided by this

2 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO common order. As a lead case, we take up ITA No. 981/Srt/2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1.0(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)/(NFAC)] was not justified and grossly erred in dismissing the appeal which is bad-in-law and against principal of natural justice equity, thereby confirming the action of the A.O. for the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is incomplete and also bad on facts. 1.0(b) Without prejudice that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. has grossly in reopening of case. 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting the addition on account 22,20,500/- for purchase of property which is incorrect & bad-in-law and needs to be deleted in the interest of natural justice and equity. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting the addition on account on unexplained other deposit amounting to Rs.11,70,000/- in bank account without considering the fact that being the various deposited on various dates in bank account which bad-in-law and needs to be deleted. 4.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in not justified and erred in confirming the initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 5.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. It is found from perusal of the record that there is delay of 458 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which, the

3 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the facts as under: "1. I, Mohd Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi, B/302, Sahil Appartment, Near Shankar Electronics, Station Road, Bilimora, Navsari 396321, being an appellant in the above appeal and the petitioner's order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 dated 17-11-2016 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 2) That I my brother, Imran Abdul Mukkhi has revived my assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 from income tax department. Thereafter my tax matter was handled by my brother and as advised by his consultant that the said assessment order is factually incorrect and an appeal against assessment order was shall be filed before Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Valsad and the said case was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi. However my brother Imran Abdul Mukkhi expired on 23-08-2022 meanwhile NFAC has dismissed the appeal we received order u/s. 250 on 21-04-2023 informing us of the rejection of appeal. 3) That appeal filed against the above mentioned order was ought to have been filed on 19-06-2023. That I am not conversant with the provisions of the Income Tax act and rules. I am a law abiding citizen having respect and regard for the government rules and regulations. But as I being uneducated and was unaware of such injustice order passed u/s 250 dated 21-04-2023 against me and thus the appeal could not be filed within the 60 days from service of order. 4) That the email-id in Form No. 35 as well as mobile no. registered on ITBA portal was not belonging to me and I was unaware and later on the said order u/s. 250 passed the impugned order came to my knowledge through Income Tax Department recovery actions and I

4 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO was advised by my another legal consultant that the said order passed by NFAC is factually incorrect and an appeal against the order was shall be filed before The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Surat Bench and immediately I have preferred an appeal before your goodself. Hence a delay of 460 days is caused in filing the appeal. The said delay is not due to my wilful default. 5) That we had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue before the lower income tax authorities." The assessee also stated that the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR did not raise any serious objection if the delay in filing of the appeals be condoned. 4. Considering the contents made in the condonation application, the delay of 458 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee field his return of income on 18/09/2009 declaring total income at ₹ 1,81,140/- for the assessment year under consideration. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and the return of income declared by the assessee was accepted. Subsequently, an information was received by the Assessing Officer in the AIR/CIB module that the assessee has

5 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO deposited a cash of ₹ 16,77,000/- and purchased an immovable property of ₹ 2,00,00,001/- during the assessment year under consideration. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act after obtaining approval under Section 151 of the Act from the ld. PCIT, Valsad. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and duly served on the assessee. In response to that, the assessee submitted that the return of income originally filed under Section 139 may be treated as income filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer and assessment was completed under Section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 17/11/2016 and additions were made on two counts i.e. (i) addition of ₹ 22,20,500/- on the ground that the assessee had purchased a plot of land worth ₹ 2,00,00,001/- alongwith ten joint co-owners, therefore, the asseessee's share is of ₹ 20.00 lacs but the payment of stamp duty at ₹ 2,00,500/- and the registration fees of ₹ 20,000/-, the total comes to ₹ 22,20,500/- which was not accounted for by the assessee in its return of income and therefore, the assessee has concealed this income. It was also mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee despite given

6 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO several opportunities of being heard, did not furnish the source of investment for the said property and (ii) further the assessee has deposited cash of ₹ 11,77,000/- in his bank account No. 02470100002898 in Bank of Baroda during the assessment year under consideration but did not furnish any detail about the source of this cash deposit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, added this sum as unexplained cash deposit and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not make any compliance despite given several notices to the assessee to explain its case. 7. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the appellant's counsel that the tax matter was handled by the brother of the assessee and as advised by his consultant that the said assessment order is factually incorrect and an appeal against assessment order will be filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the

7 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO Tribunal. However, his brother expired on 23/08/2022 and due to that, the appeal could not be pursued. It was further submitted that the appellant is not conversant with the provisions of income tax law and rules but since he is a law abiding citizen having regard to the government rules and regulations, the matter may be sent back to the lower authorities so that he can submit all the required details before them to explain his case. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and it is found that the assessee is not well conversant with the provisions of the income tax law and his brother, who was pursuing his case, expired on 23/08/2022, accordingly, the same could not be pursued. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we find it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 30 days from receipt of this order. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity before

8 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO the ld. CIT(A) to produce the details as and when sought for by the ld. CIT(A). 11. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 12. Now we take ITA No. 982/Srt/2024 for the A.Y. 2010-11. In this appeal, there is delay of 286 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. We after considering the contentions made in the application of condonation of delay, condone the delay of 286 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The facts and grounds raised in this appeal are identical to the facts and grounds raised in ITA No. 841/Srt/2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, our finding given in ITA No. 841/Srt/2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10 shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 18/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 18/06/2026 *Ranjan

9 ITA No. 981 & 982/Srt/2024 Mohd. Suleman Abdul Khalique Mukkhi vs ITO आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत