JAI MOHAN SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
28.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
1. Natural Justice
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi CIT (A) ('Ld. CIT (A), Mumbai ["the A.O."]

erred in not g being heard.
address regis appellant's i professional f
Consequently file a respons fundamental p
In view of the Honour be ple
2. Best judge
The Ld. A.O.
provisions of circumstances framed is bad
WITHOUT PR
3. Addition
Income Tax A The Ld. A.O.
69C of the I expenditure a 4. On the fact
The Ld. AO le
5. On the fact legally erred i
2. Briefly stated, f return of income e income of Rs. 3,53, under the Act and n
Act, 1961 (hereinafte complied with. There the Act were issued
ITA giving sufficient, proper and adequate opp
The notice of opportunity was sent to stered on the e-filing portal, which belon ncome tax practitioner. Unfortunately, failed to communicate the notice to the y, the appellant was deprived of the opp se or present his case, resulting in a br principles of natural justice.
e above, the appellant respectfully pray eased to grant an opportunity of being hea ement assessment is Invalid erred in framing the reassessment in f section 144 of the Act. In the fact s of the case, and in law, the reasse d, illegal and void ab initio.
REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:
of Rs. 47,12,671/- under section 6
Act 1961
erred in making addition of Rs. 47,12,
Income tax Act, 1961 considering as u and added back to the total income of the ts and in the circumstances of the case a egally erred in charging interest u/s 234B ts and in the circumstances of the case t in passing penalty order u/s 271 AAC of facts of the case are that the as electronically on 03.08.2017
,010/-. The return was select notice under section 143(2) of er referred to as “the Act”) was i eafter, statutory notices under s d, accompanied with a detailed
Jai Mohan Singh
2
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
portunity of o the email nged to the , the said e appellant.
portunity to reach of the s that your ard.
nvoking the ts and the essment so 69C of the ,671/- u/s.
unexplained assesses.
and in law,
B of the Act.
the Ld. A.O.
of the Act.
ssessee filed his declaring total ted for scrutiny the Income-tax issued and duly section 142(1) of d questionnaire calling for, inter a aggregating to Rs. 47
there was no compl issued a final show c
As the assessee ag proceeded ex parte a treated the credit car expenditure and adde
3. On appeal, th compliance of statuto terms:
“8.2.2 In view appellant ha proceedings, evidence to ju had not furn justify the p
47,12,671/- t course of ass despite vario
47,12,671/-
Rs. 47,12,671
2017-18 u/s appeal is dis
4. Before us, the condonation of dela placing reliance upon was contended that not served on the ITA lia, the explanation of sourc
7,12,671/- incurred through cre liance to such notices, the As cause notice under section 144
gain failed to respond, the As and, vide assessment order dat rd expenses of Rs. 47,12,671/- ed the same to the income of the he learned CIT(A), noticing p ory notices, upheld the addition w of the facts available on record it is c as failed to discharge his onus. Durin the appellant has not submitted any d ustify his claim. Considering the fact th nished any explanation or documentary payment of credit card bills amoun to the satisfaction of the authority eithe sessment proceedings or in the appellate ous opportunity, the addition made by is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the 1/- made by the AO in the assessment o
69C of the Act is confirmed and thi smissed.”
e learned counsel for the a ay of 374 days in filing the p n an affidavit explaining the ci the notices of hearing before assessee’s e-mail address,
Jai Mohan Singh
3
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
ce of expenses edit cards. Since ssessing Officer
(1)(b) of the Act.
ssessing Officer ted 21.12.2019, as unexplained e assessee.
persistent non- in the following clear that the ng appellate documentary hat appellant evidence to nting to Rs.
er during the proceedings y AO of Rs.
e addition of order for A.Y.
is ground of assessee sought present appeal, ircumstances. It the CIT(A) were as specifically mentioned in Form N mail addresses of h ceased to represent t itself was also not re occurred bonafide. T the assessee was pre appeal and the de assessee has a stro condoned.
5. The learned De opposed the condona been made out.
6. We have heard condonation of the d the affidavit of the as 5. I say that passed by th not file the a before the Ld address "jai
However, afte portal, variou erstwhile
"bmdesaiitp@
rdikvora2007
instead of my
6. I say that proceedings.
notices, which ITA

No. 35, but were instead transm his erstwhile Chartered Accoun the assessee. Consequently, the eceived by the assessee in time he Ld. counsel for the assessee evented by the sufficient cause f lay was not intentional and ong case on merit, therefore, partmental Representative, on ation contending that no suffic rival submissions of the parties delay in filing the appeal. The ssessee is reproduced as under:
I did not receive the notices of hearing he Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.03.2024, and the appeal within the prescribed time. In Fo d. CIT(A), I had specifically mentioned m i_singh1981@yahoo.com" for all com er the enablement of the communication us notices were sent to the email addr consultant,
Mr.
B.M.
Desai,
@gmail.com",
"indiraghosh67@gmail.co
7@rediffmail.com", and "bmdesaistp y email id mentioned in the appeal memo.
t Mr. B.M. Desai was engaged only for During the assessment, he did not resp h were sent to his email ID. Being a senio
Jai Mohan Singh
4
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
mitted to the e- ntant, who had e appellate order e, and the delay e submitted that for not filing the otherwise the delay might be the other hand, cient cause had s on the issue of relevant part of or the order erefore could
Form 35 filed my own email mmunications.
n window on resses of my namely, om",
"ha tp@yahoo.in", assessment pond to any or citizen not attending offi emails were unnoticed. Up
C.P. Chechan appeal before
7. I say that the appeal me of the old con hearing notice that I was un would also be to Covid-19, issued on the notices issue sent to the ol same.
8. I say that consultant for checked the I order for A.Y thereafter, I before the Ho
9. I say that mentioned cir
10. I say tha compliance be caused solely
11. I say that condoned, I substantial confirmed ag
6.1 We have caref perused the affidavit with supporting circu appellate order was addresses of the e
ITA fice regularly, Mr. Desai later informed being received in his spam folder and pon receipt of the assessment order, I e ni & Associates, Chartered Accountants, t e the Ld. CIT(A).
despite the fact that I had mentioned my emo, the notices continued to be sent on sultants, Mr. B.M. Desai. Initially, they fo e to me for which I filed adjournment re nder a bonafide impression that subseq e sent to me by the consultants. However the said consultants stopped forwarding eir email IDs. As a result, I did not receive d by Hon'ble CIT(A). Even the appellat ld consultant's email ID and I was not a it was only in May 2025, when I appo r filing my return of income for A.Y. 2025
Income Tax Portal and discovered that t
Y. 2017-18 had already been passed.
took steps to arrange for filing the pre n'ble Tribunal, which was filed on 09.06. the delay in filing the appeal was due t rcumstances beyond my control.
at the delay in filing the appeal as well efore lower authorities was purely unint y by reasons beyond my control.
t I have a strong case on merits and if the will suffer irreparable loss and p additions and demands gainst me.
fully considered the rival su placed on record. The assessee umstances, that the non-receip on account of their mi irectio erstwhile consultant, and no Jai Mohan Singh
5
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
me that the d thus went engaged M/s to handle my y email id in n the email id orwarded the equest. I say quent notices r, subsequent g the notices e subsequent e order was aware of the ointed a new
5-26, that he the appellate
Immediately esent appeal
2025. to the above- l as the non- tentional and e delay is not rejudice, as will be ubmissions and e has explained, pt of notices and on to the e-mail ot due to any negligence or delibera is plausible, and the explained. Applying
Katiji & Ors. [(1987) that substantial just are satisfied that the Accordingly, the dela and the appeal is adm
7. We have heard t ground No. 1 of the multiple statutory no on different dates, b ready reference, the d tabulated below:
Sr. No.
Da
1. 28.0
2. 28.1
3. 08.0
4. 17.0
5. 08.1
6. 16.0
7. Fina
18.0
ITA ate default on his part. The exp delay in filing the appeal stan the ratio of Collector, Land Acq
167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein it tice deserves to prevail over te e assessee was prevented by s ay of 374 days in filing the app mitted for adjudication.
the rival submissions on the iss e appeal. The learned CIT(A) otices under section 250 of the but none elicited a substantive dates of hearing notices and the ate of Issue
Hearing Date
Rem
2.2020
16.03.2020
Adjournm
2.2020
14.01.2021
Adjournm
4.2022
18.04.2022
No reply
6.2022
24.06.2022
No reply
2.2023
14.12.2023
No reply
2.2024
22.02.2024
No reply al notice on 3.2024
26.03.2024
No reply
Jai Mohan Singh
6
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
planation offered nds satisfactorily quisition v. Mst.
t has been held echnicalities, we sufficient cause.
peal is condoned sue raised in the has noted that Act were issued e response. For eir outcomes are mark ment ment

S
(SUCHITRA RAGHU
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 10/09/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

ITA e us, the assessee has tender ns for such non-compliance, n e order were mi irected to the e t. In our considered view, th ct that the assessee has und ry evidence in support of the nity in the interest of justice. Acc circumstances, we set aside t e impugned issue and restore t h adjudication in accordance iberty to file all necessary evide ss to say, due opportunity of be ssessee. The ground No. 1 of th gly allowed. The remaining gro mic and therefore, we are not adj the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court. UNATH KAMBLE)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Jai Mohan Singh
7
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
red an affidavit namely that the e-mail IDs of the his explanation, ertaken to now claim, warrants cordingly, in the the order of the the matter back with law. The ences in support eing heard shall he appeal of the unds on appeal djudicating upon is allowed for d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Jai Mohan Singh
8
A No. 4072/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai