VICKY BIPIN GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3739/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 September 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order without considering the assessee's written submissions, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the NFAC, which originated from an ex-parte order by the Ld. AO. The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Hearing: 01/09/2025Pronounced: 04/09/2025

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2013- 14, date of order 21/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 22/05/2023.

Vicky Bipin Gala 2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the documents available on record. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 595, which has been duly taken on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- was made under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, treating the same as unexplained investment, and consequentially taxed under section 115BBE. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

It was argued that the assessee had, in compliance with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 12.03.2025, filed a detailed written submission along with supporting annexures through the online portal on 21.03.2025. The said submissions are placed in the assessee’s paper book at APB pages 592 to 595. Specific reference was invited to APB page 595, which contains the acknowledgment of online submission before the Ld. CIT(A). However, without considering these submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass the impugned ex- parte order on the very same date, thereby denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

4.

The Ld. DR, while supporting the orders of the revenue authorities, did not raise any serious objection to the factual contention of the assessee.

5.

In our considered view, it is an undisputed fact that the notice was issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee duly complied by filing written submissions with annexures, as evidenced by the documents at APB pages 592 to 595. The Ld. DR has also fairly conceded that such filing had indeed been made prior to the passing

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →