MIKADO TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH
MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mikado Textile Industries Ltd.,
210, Unique Industrial Estate,
Chakala Road, Maharashtra-
400097
Vs.
Income Tax Officer
Ward
12(3)(1),
Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.AAACM00649Q
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Jain
Revenue by Shri Mahadevan A.M.
Krishnan, Addl. CIT
Date of Hearing
23/04/2025
Date of Pronouncement
29/04/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 28/03/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144. 2. Before us assessee has challenged the validity of reopening u/s.147
and on merits, challenged the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- added u/s.68. Mikado Textile Industries Ltd.

2
3. At the outset, appeal of the assessee is time barred by 192
days. In the petition of condonation of delay it has been stated that assessee’s company was in liquidation and has stopped its business since 1988 and office of the assessee was closed and there was no employee. Assessee had appointed one tax practitioner Mr. Bhavin Kanakiya to look after its tax related matters and the concerned person looking after the company matter himself was a very aged person having no knowledge or expertise in the tax appeal matters. The assessee could not file the appeal in time due to lack of any information or knowledge about the service of the first appellate order which has been passed exparte and the same was posted in the income tax portal. It was when assessee was served with the show-cause notice dated 28/11/2024 for the demand, then only assessee came to know that the order has been passed and SMS or mail for communication must have been sent to Mr. Bhavin kanakiya who had given his mobile number and e-mail ID. Assessee was not informed by Mr. Bhavin Kanakiya. When he was approached then he stated that he is unable to handle the matters of the assessee. Accordingly, assessee took steps to file appeal against first appellate order before this Tribunal. An affidavit has also been filed in support of the averments made in taking the steps leading to delay in filing of appeal. Looking to the aforesaid facts that the work of the company has been stopped and does not have any employee and also the earlier tax practitioner looking after the matter did not intimate the order to the assessee, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Mikado Textile Industries Ltd.

3
4. On merits, it is seen that the ld. AO on the basis of some AIR information and TDS statement noted that assessee had sold some immovable property at Rs.2,60,00,000/-. Based on this information a notice u/s.148 was issued. However, in response to the notice, no return of income has been filed and according to the ld.AO, none of the notices were complied by the assessee.
Accordingly, he treated the amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/- as income from other sources which as per the information was on account of sale of some immovable property and made the addition u/s.68 of Rs.2,60,00,000/-. Ld. CIT (A) too has dismissed the appeal exparte as assessee could not appear.