SHAILESH HATMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing Assessment Year 2011-2012 the order u/s.250 of the Act dated 19.08.2024 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an ad hoc estimate of profit element of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.3,12,68,911/- resulting in the disallowance of Rs.39,08,614/- which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) of the Act.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, requested for restoring the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the appeal preferred by the Assessee. It was submitted that the impugned order dated, 19/08/2024, was passed by the Learned CIT(A) and uploaded on the Income Tax Portal on 19/08/2024. By way of the impugned order the appeal filed by the Assessee was dismissed in limine on the ground of non-compliance by the Assessee. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed by the 2 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Assessee on 06/05/2025. It was submitted that in case the date of passing of the impugned order is taken as the date of communication of the said order, there is a delay of 187 days [6 months, 7 days] in filing the present appeal. However, the Assessee did not have knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal and non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to genuineness and bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the Assessee. It is submitted that for Assessment Year 2011-2012, the Assessee was engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. The assessment proceedings were carried out and completed vide Assessment Order dated 17/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It is submitted that the chartered accountant handling assessment and appellate proceedings for the relevant assessment year gave his Email address [i.e., ‘accounts@ckpradeep.com’] in the appeal memorandum. Even on the Income Tax Portal, the Email addresses of the chartered accountant ['pradeepchhanang@yahoo.com' & ‘accounts@ckpradeep.com'] were registered up to September 2023. Accordingly, notices were issued on the aforesaid email addresses and the Assessee did not receive the same. Meanwhile, on account of internal issues, the said chartered accountant stopped handling litigation matters of the Assessee. Therefore, the notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) were neither complied with nor communicated to the Assessee. Subsequently, in October 2023, the Assessee updated the primary Email Address on the income tax portal as 'finolextubes@gmail.com'. The Assessee was under a bonafide impression that as the Email address on the portal was changed, the communication from the Ld. CIT(A) would be received on his personal email address. However, the subsequent notices issued from December 2023 and the impugned order were sent only on the secondary email id 3 Assessment Year 2011-2012 ['accounts@ckpradeep.com'] mentioned in the appeal memo which was not changed by the Assessee. The Assessee was not aware of notice of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and the passing of the impugned order. In April 2025, when the Assessee engaged a new consultant for filing returns from Assessment Year 2025-2026 onwards, it came to the knowledge of the Assessee that impugned order had been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 19/08/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-2012. The new consultant immediately informed the Assessee, and without any further delay, the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 06/05/2025, resulting in a delay of 187 days. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and beyond control of the Assessee and therefore, the same be condoned. Reliance was also placed upon the following judicial precedents: