BIPIN VINODKANT LODHAVIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7969/MUM/2026 (AY: 2017-18) Bipin Vinodkant Lodhavia vs. DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), B-2802, Aquaria Grande, Devidas Kautilya Bhavan, C 41-43, BKC, Bandra Lane, Opp. Brahmakumari Garden, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai– Borivali West, Mumbai-400103. 400051. PAN/GIR No: AABPL1491P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shree Kumar C. (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 29.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 24.06.2026 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-

18.

“1) Reopening of Assessment is bad in law.

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment.

1.2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without appreciating that same was based solely on third-party information (DDIT Inv. Wing) and without the necessary independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and hence the reopening is invalid and without jurisdiction.

ITA No.7969/MUM/2026 Bipin Vinodkant Lodhavia 1.4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without appreciating that the sanction u/s 151 is bad in law as same is obtained from PR CIT instead of Pr CCIT and hence the reopening is invalid and without jurisdiction.

2) Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as Unexplained Investment u/s 69

2.1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,61,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act as unexplained money being alleged cash loan advanced without appreciating that provisions of Section 69A would not apply in absence of actual cash/money being found and hence, the addition of Rs 50,61,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A may be deleted.

2.2) Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,61,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act without appreciating that the addition was based on surmises and conjectures as same was made entirely on the basis of third-party material and third party statements having no nexus with the alleged fact of cash loan given by the Assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the Appellant and the third party statements are retracted and the Id NFAC did not follow the decision of the ITAT in Appellants own case and hence the addition of Rs 50,61,000/- u/s 69A may be deleted.

3) The learned appellant craves leave to amend, to alter, to modify and/or delete any ground of appeal before the same is disposed off finally.”

behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was filed. The appellant

has also not filed any written submission and corroborative details in support of

the grounds of appeal. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in prolonging

the litigation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union

of India (Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009) has held that it is axiomatic that 2

ITA No.7969/MUM/2026 Bipin Vinodkant Lodhavia no Court or Tribunal is supposed to continue proceedings before it when the party

who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal,

therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possess. The Hon’ble High

Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Nandramdas

Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 206 while deciding the case. It is now well settled that

the Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal if the assessee was not

represented in its case despite adequate and reasonable opportunity of being

heard granted to it. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the

appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, liberty is

granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the

reasons for non-compliance to the notice issued to it.

Order is pronounced on 29.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 29.09.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 3

ITA No.7969/MUM/2026 Bipin Vinodkant Lodhavia 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI