ABHIJEET RAJARAM PATIL,MUMBAI vs. AO, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: 147-Resorting to the provisions of section 147 Expln :- The learned ITO was not justified in resorting to the provisions of section 147 of the Act The said resort to the provisions of section 147 and also the order passed consequent thereto are illegal and invalid

143(3)- Disall on the transfe
Expln:- The deduction of on the transf repayment of 5233333 iii I
Improvement
Transfer expe
143(3)- failed income of the Expln:- The l amounts were 143(3)- not all Expln:- The le of the loans i
Raja Rani Tra transfer of the 143(3)- The L considering th as unexplaine
Expln:- The le
Rs. 7,69,000/
as unexplaine
234A, 234B, 2
Expln:- The le
234A 234B respect of th
2. At the threshold delay of 718 days in that the assessee ha delay, nor has any s
ITA lowance of Deductions while computing c er of the property learned ITO was not justified in disa the following amounts while computing c fer of the property: i Indexed cost of ba f Rs 15880400 ii Indexed cost of other
Indexed cost of security deposit of Rs cost Rs. 8,11,553/- totalling Rs. 2,35
enses Rs 700000
d to appreciate that the above amounts w appellant at all earned ITO has failed to appreciate tha e not the income of the appellant at all lowing the set off of the loans earned ITO was not justified in not allowin in respect of the amounts advanced to t avels P Ltd. against the capital gains com e property
Learned ITO has added an amount of Rs hem as cash deposits for business purpo ed cash credit.
earned ITO was not justified in adding a /- being cash deposits for business purpo ed cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961
234C- Levy of Interest earned ITO was not justified in levying and 234C The appellant denies his he same.
d, we notice that the Registry ha n filing the present appeal. It i as not filed any application for supporting affidavit been place
Abhijeet Rajaram Patil
2
A No. 4134/MUM/2025
capital gains allowing the capital gains ank mortgage loans of Rs
1619600 &
5,44,886/- iv were not the at the above ng the set off the company mputed on the s. 7,69,000/- ose treating it an amount of ose treating it interests us s liability in as pointed out a is further noted condonation of ed on record. In addition thereto, the the authorized person of appeal; rather, wh
Registry, while scruti the following defects:
1. Appeal is time-b
2. Name/designati particulars.
3. Uploaded Form
4. Copy of the asse
5. Form 36 and gr
6. Relevant section 3. Despite such defe no steps were taken intimated of the hea post, which was duly was neither appearan of the assessee. It is notice issued by the R
4. In these circumst parte qua the assess hopelessly barred by has been filed, and f
ITA

Form No. 36 as filed is neither n nor accompanied by properly hat has been uploaded is only a inizing the papers, has specific barred by 718 days.
ion not correctly filled in 36 is incomplete/missing pages essment order not filed.
ounds of appeal not signed by th n and sub-section not properly f ects being specifically notified t to cure the same. The assesse aring fixed on 07.08.2025 by w y served. However, even on the nce nor any request for adjourn s also pertinent to record that Registry was not complied with.
tances, we have no option bu ee. Having regard to the fact th y limitation and no application further considering that the ve
Abhijeet Rajaram Patil
3
A No. 4134/MUM/2025
r duly signed by signed grounds a draft copy. The cally pointed out n respondent’s s.
he appellant.
filled in.
to the assessee, ee was also duly way of registered said date, there nment on behalf even the earlier t to proceed ex hat the appeal is for condonation ery Form No. 36

placed on record is d hold that the appeal
5. Accordingly, the clarified that this di availing any remedy defects as pointed ou accordance with law.
6. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 22/08/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

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

////

ITA defective and unsigned, we are is not maintainable in law.
appeal is dismissed in limine.
ismissal shall not preclude the as may be available under law ut are duly rectified and the sam he appeal of the assessee is rejec ced in the open Court on 22/0
d/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Abhijeet Rajaram Patil
4
A No. 4134/MUM/2025
e constrained to . However, it is e assessee from w, provided the me is pursued in cted.
08/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai