FRONT LINE GUARDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7909/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal, finding no intentional or deliberate delay. On merits, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding duplicate PANs and the resulting non-service of proper notices. The assessee had made a limited prayer to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment and verification of the source of the time deposit. The Tribunal noted that one of the PANs under which the assessment order was passed had been surrendered, and the assessee was allowed to use PAN AASCF 5875 H. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after verifying the source of the time deposit. The assessee was also directed to be more vigilant in future and make timely compliance. The AO was instructed to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing the fresh order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Front Line Guards Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 09.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of approximately 40 days. The assessee contended that the delay was not intentional, as they were unaware of the CIT(A)'s order until 05.06.2026. The core of the dispute involved an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee claimed was passed under a non-operational PAN. The assessee also raised issues regarding the reopening of the case under Section 147 and an addition of Rs. 4,87,97,432/- under Section 69B for alleged unexplained investment in a time deposit, noting that the show cause notice proposed addition under Section 69A. The assessee's primary submission was that due to duplicate PANs issued, proper notices were not served, leading to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned for delay, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as it was passed under a non-operational PAN? 3. Whether the reopening of the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer was justified? 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,87,97,432/- under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for treating the time deposit as unexplained investment, was valid? 5. Whether the addition made under Section 69B was valid when the show cause notice proposed addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as it was not intentional and they were unaware of the CIT(A)'s order. They further contended that the assessment order was bad in law due to being passed under a non-operational PAN, and the reopening under Section 147 was unjustified. The addition under Section 69B was challenged, highlighting the discrepancy between the show cause notice (Section 69A) and the final order (Section 69B). The assessee attributed non-compliance to the issuance of duplicate PANs, leading to improper service of notices. They prayed for the matter to be restored to the AO for a fresh assessment on the correct PAN and for verification of the time deposit source. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) with a direction to the assessee to make proper compliance in time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69B,Section 69A,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) Front Line Guards Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward – 14(1)(1), Mumbai Shop No. 2 & 3, Royal Residency, vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, New Plot No. 34, Sector 05, Opp. Marine Lines, Churchgate, Koparkhairane Rly. Station (W), Mumbai – 400020. Navi Mumbai – 400709, Maharashtra. [PAN: AAACF2042A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA (AR) Revenue by Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr. DR Date of institution 10.07.2026 Date of hearing 29.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the alleged order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.03.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-

21.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) as well as the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

2.

On the facts and circumsta

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →