Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were against orders dated 22.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for A.Ys 2017-2018, 2018-19 and 2020-21. The appeals were clubbed due to common issues. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively represent their case before the CIT(A) and decided to provide one more opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid jurisdiction and whether the addition made under section 69A was illegal.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 159, 69A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Brajendra Kumar (SR. DR ) Date of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN JM:
The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the impugned orders dated 22.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the A.Ys 2017-2018, 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take A.Y 2017-18 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
, A.Y 2017-18 The following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee:
1. Reopening Without Valld Jurisdiction-Sections 147 & 148 1.1 The Learned AO erred in law and on facts in initiating reassessment proceedings without satisfying mandatory jurisdictional conditions prescribed under sections 147 and 148A. 1.2 The order passed u/s 148A(d) is arbitrary, mechanical and passed without proper consideration of assessee's objections, rendering the entire reassessment void ab initio.
2. Invalid Assumption of Jurisdiction on Legal Heir-Section 159 2.1 The Learned AQ erred in treating the Appellant as legal representative of the deceased without establishing inheritance of tax liability in accordance with law. 2.2 The business admittedly continued in the Appellant's proprietary capacity and therefore, reopening in of the case in the individual name & PAN No.of the Appellant insteadin the capacity of Legal heir of deceased assessee through section 159 is invalid in law.
3. Ex-Parte Assessment in Gross Violation of Natural Justice 3.1 The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 has been passed without providing effective opportunity of hearing. 3.2 The entire reassessment is liable to be quashed as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Illegal Addition of 12,00,000/- u/s 69A-Alleged Cash Sales of By-products 4.1 The Learned AO erred in making addition merely on the basis of third-party statement and loose sheets, without: a) independent corroboration b) Proof of ownership of alleged cash c) Proof of generation of by-products.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records, we noticed that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post. More than one month has passed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee/appellant, and therefore drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service of summons/notice had been duly effected.
On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.
From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) and consequently, considering the documents placed on record, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on the file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
and 8725/Mum/2025, A.Y 2018-19 and 2020-21.
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2017-18 (except variance in days of delay, if any) therefore, the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeal also.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2026