PKH VENTURES LIMITED,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was unaware of the notices during appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) as they were sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened under Section 148 and assessment completed at a higher income. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty was levied. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty order should be confirmed when the assessee was not aware of the notices due to an incorrect email address, leading to a lack of opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 11.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.
A.Y. 2012-13 PKH Ventures Ltd.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and the penalty order passed by the A.O is grossly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law and violates F the principal of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed.
2. The Notices issued under section 271(1)(c) on 20/12/2019, 23/02/2021, 17/03/2021 and 19/08/2021 and communicated on the email id alok@pkhs.in. which belongs to family member who is no more the director of the company and the notices were never got acknowledged by the company as no handover of that particular mail took place.
3. That on facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in making addition for the money received for the issue of shares of the company even after submitting the share certificates, annual returns and all the other documents required to prove the genuineness.
4. That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, to modify, to rescind, supplement or alter any other grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return declaring income of Rs. 99,26,090/- for AY 2012-13 on 29.09.2012. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,95,95,300/- vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 14.12.2019. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for concealment of income. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.03.2022, a penalty of Rs. 30,82,755/- was levied for concealment of particulars of income.
4. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Despite several notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made by the assessee, and accordingly, vide order dated 11.03.2025, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was confirmed by him.
A.Y. 2012-13 PKH Ventures Ltd. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that no compliance could be made during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) as the notices were sent on a different email i.e. alok@pkhs.in. However, this email belongs to the person who is no longer with the company, and accordingly, the company was unaware of the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Ld. AR accordingly requested that the matter may be remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and has also mentioned the correct email address of the company i.e. piyush@mittalagarwal.com. Ld. DR has not objected to the above proposition.
After hearing the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee on the email address provided by the Ld. AR.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
