MUKESH MISHRA,THANE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

ITA 5853/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2026AY 2020-20217 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mukesh Mishra, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2020-2021. Following information from the portal, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148. The assessee filed a return of income on July 12, 2024, declaring a total income of ₹23,38,410. However, the assessee failed to respond to most notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) and a show-cause notice. Consequently, the AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3)/147, making additions on various grounds. The assessee appealed this order to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), but again failed to provide submissions or evidence. The NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, citing non-receipt of submissions despite issuing notices to the email address provided. The assessee is now appealing the NFAC's order to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish a return of income initially and did not participate seriously in the reassessment proceedings, leading to additions. Similarly, before the learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee did not furnish any response to substantiate the grounds of appeal, resulting in an ex-parte dismissal. The assessee contended that hearing notices were not properly delivered to their email ID. The Tribunal observed that the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without a decision on merits. In the interest of substantive justice and considering the factual matrix, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals). The assessee is to be provided another opportunity through notice on an email ID to be communicated by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to consider the appeal proceedings more seriously and submit written submissions along with evidence to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing an ex-parte appellate order under section 250, dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the addition of ₹11,71,078 as Short Term Capital Gain on sale of securities, by mechanically adopting the purchase value as cost of acquisition without considering the actual cost and period of holding as required under Sections 45 to 48? 4. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the addition of ₹63,40,996 under section 69 as Unexplained Investments in respect of purchase of securities settled otherwise than by actual delivery? 5. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the addition of ₹3,67,369 under section 69 as Unexplained Investments towards purchase of securities in the absence of supporting documentary evidence? 6. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the addition of ₹17,84,600 under section 69 as Unexplained Investments towards purchase of immovable property in the absence of supporting documentary evidence? 7. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of ₹2,00,000 claimed in respect of interest on housing loan without granting adequate opportunity to furnish documentary evidence? 8. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of ₹2,25,000 claimed under Chapter VI-A for want of supporting documentary evidence? 9. Whether the NFAC erred in upholding the addition of ₹1,161 made under the head salary on account of alleged short disclosure? Assessee's Contentions: - The ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the NFAC is contrary to section 250(6) and principles of natural justice. Hearing notices were sent to an email address not regularly accessed, and no effective communication was made through alternate channels. The non-participation was not willful. An opportunity of being heard should be granted. (Grounds 1 & 2) - The NFAC erred in upholding additions related to Short Term Capital Gain, Unexplained Investments in securities and immovable property, and short disclosure of salary income, without considering actual cost, period of holding, nature of transactions, and supporting documentary evidence. Additions should be deleted or profits/losses computed as per law. (Grounds 3, 4, 5, 6, 9) - The NFAC erred in upholding disallowances of deductions for housing loan interest and under Chapter VI-A (Sections 80C, 80D, 80CCD(1B)) without adequate opportunity to furnish evidence. These deductions are genuine and should be granted. (Grounds 7 & 8) Revenue's Contentions: - The learned DR vehemently opposed the request for sending the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) as the assessee is habitually non-compliant. (Para 6)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 139,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 45,Section 46,Section 47,Section 48,Section 69,Section 80C,Section 80D,Section 80CCD(1B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

For Appellant: Ms Ketki Rajeshirke
For Respondent: Shri Prasana Prakash
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

PER : Shri Rakesh Kumar Lodha, Accountant Member: This appeal has been field by the assessee, against an order dated 10-03-2026, under section 250 of the Act, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“NFAC”], for the Assessment year

ITA NO. 5853-MUM-2026 MUKESH MISHRA AY- 2020-2021 2020-2021, arising out of the assessment order under section 143(3)/147 of the Act.

2.

The assessee raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

Opportunity of being heard be given: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Cent

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →