DINKAR KESHAV KSHIRSAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1964/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant 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 assessee had shown reasonable cause for not submitting written submissions before the CIT(A) as notices were sent to an email address other than the one provided. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had appeared ex-parte before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution, despite the assessee claiming they did not receive proper notices due to an incorrect email address being used. The assessee argued this violated natural justice principles and that they had reasonable cause for non-submission.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and if the notice was served on the correct email address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 250,Section 251,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.01.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

”1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the leamed Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 29.01.2025 may be set aside and the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

2.

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 29.01.2025 as passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non- prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds/additional grounds of appeal and the issues under consideration. The said order being in violation of the provisions of Section 250 and 251 of the Act and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in "CIT vs. PremkumarArjundasLuthra (HUF)- [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)" may be quashed.

3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 10,77,000/- as unexplained income being unsustainable in law may be deleted.”

2. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee could not avail reasonable and fair opportunity either during assessment or before first appellate stage. The assessment was completed under section 144. While filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee has given email address as of harshedforeber@rediffmail.com for the purpose of service of notice etc. However, no such notices were served through such email address. The assessee while checking the status of appeal filed that his appeal has already been dismissed on 29.01.2025. The assessee immediately filed appeal before Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee furnished copy of screen shot of ITBA portal showing the fact that notices under section 250 was sent by ld. CIT(A) on the email address other than the email mentioned on Form 35. For non-appearance before assessing officer, the assessee, while filing first appeal, in his statement of fact contended that due to old age related issues and medical reasons, the assessee could not respond to certain notice of assessing officer. The assessee was prevented by reasonable cause.

The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for restoring the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A).

3.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that assessment was completed under section 144. The assessing officer by passing the assessment order made addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 10,77,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A taxed the same under section 115BBE. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by taking view that appeal was fixed for hearing on three occasions. The assessee neither responded nor sought any adjournment nor file any written submission. We find that ld. CIT(A) has issued notice through email, other than the email address provided at the time of filling appeal. Thus, considering the overall facts, in our view, the assessee has shown reasonable cause for non-submission of written submission before ld. CIT(A). We, further find that assessee was ex-parte even before assessing officer, therefore, keeping in view of the fact that in the event of filing any submission, evidence or explanation before ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) may require remand report from assessing officer, hence the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to avoid the technicality of remand report. In the result, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 07/07/2025.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →