Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 56(2)(vii)(b) and 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee failed to comply with notices from the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in an ex-parte order affirming the additions.
Held
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's claim that they had answered 'No' to receiving email notices on Form 35, yet notices were sent via email. Considering this and the need for proper adjudication, the case was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order by the Ld. Commissioner was justified due to the Assessee's non-compliance, and if the issues could be properly adjudicated in the absence of Assessee's submissions.
Sections Cited
56(2)(vii)(b), 2(24)(x), 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.3,41,84,927/- and Rs.27,410/- respectively under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and section 2(24)(x) as deemed income and added the same to the income of the Assessee.
2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said additions by filing a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite issuing various notices, made no compliance, which resulted in passing the impugned order, as ex-parte and affirming the aforesaid disallowances/additions.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessee has claimed that in Form no. 35, answering to the specific question “whether notices/communication may be sent on email,” the Assessee answered specifically “No” but still the Ld. Commissioner issued notices on mail but not in physical mode.
Thus, on the aforesaid reason, the non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) appears to be plausible. We further observe that the issues involved also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions and documents which the Assessee failed to file because of the aforesaid reason. Thus, considering peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to imposition a cost of Rs. 11,000/-, so that the Assessee will become more vigilant and/or make compliance accordingly.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- within one month from today in the Revenue Department under “Other Heads”.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file relevant details/documents, as may be essentially required for just and proper decision of the case by the Ld. Commissioner.
3 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.02.2026.