Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 939 days. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to residing in Sri Lanka, personal hardships, and lack of proper notice regarding the assessment and appellate proceedings. The assessee also stated that notices were not served on their correct email IDs, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 939 days, finding sufficient cause. While acknowledging the additions made by the AO regarding cash deposits, Section 80C deductions, and housing loan principal repayment, the Tribunal noted a lack of effective representation and opportunity of being heard for the assessee at both the AO and CIT(A) levels. The Tribunal clarified that no opinion on the merits was expressed.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the revenue authorities.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, 143(3), 80C, 226(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4th floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 PAN: ACYPT3095J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent by : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 28/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2012-13, date of order 28.11.2022. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. ACIT-27(1), Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 143(3) date of order 24.03.2015 of the Act.
Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with the 939 days delay. The assessee filed the condonation petition with an affidavit duly sworn by assessee himself on dated 10/10/2025. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as below:- 6. I state that, during this time as well I was living in Sri Lanka for the most part and returned back only in 2023 after the COVID pandemic subdued across the world including Sri Lanka. The primary reason of returning was that at this time a mutual settlement was arrived at between me and my spouse for the sake of our children who were both minors then. Now, since no notice of hearing was received by me, I was also not aware of the ongoing faceless appeal proceeding. As a result, I was not aware that any such order is passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, neither any notice of hearing nor the order so passed was ever served on me or on my registered email IDs. Therefore, no action could be taken on the said order.
Suddenly, on 23.07.2025, I received a call from one Neeraj Singh who stated he was calling from the Income Tax Department and in a very harsh and unsavoury tone ordered to pay the tax demands which were allegedly due form me. He even threatened me with severe action for non- payment of these dues. Thereafter, he issued a notice to my tenant to pay rents to him. It is only on this call that I was actually intimated about the demands outstanding in my case. Prior to this, there was no intimation as regards the demand or even the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I was completely shocked to learn about this since unaware about any of the tax related proceedings. Thereafter, I consulted a Chartered Accountant specialising in tax matters in order to understand the reasons of demands and the solution therefor. The CA advised to immediately request the Assessing Officer to grant a stay in the recovery proceedings and at the same time advised the Assessee to consult a tax counsel on the matter. Immediately, thereafter, I met a Counsel who advised me to first of all check on all the outstanding demands. It was only then, with the help of the Counsel and the Chartered Accountant, I found from the portal that the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on ex-parte basis confirming the assessment order. I was completely shocked to see this. 8: Thereafter, I again consulted the Counsel who advised to file an appeal against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, since I was not in India for a period of over 8 to 9 years, I the Appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. I also took help from the new CA who checked the portal, however, at that time in the e- proceedings tab nothing was being shown or reflected. Since nothing was available on the portal, I wrote an e-mail on 19.08.2025 to the Ld. CIT(A)-25, Mumbai as well as the Ld. Income Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar Tax Officer 27(1)(1), the current Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in my case to provide the necessary documents. However, no response to the same was sent and instead another notice was issued to me making a proclamation of sale of my property. This notice was issued without any prior service or intimation of notice of attachment of the property to me and in gross violation of the extant law and principles of justice. As a result, I filed the present appeal, though defective, with a sincere request to condone the delay in filing the same. Since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is only reflected on the portal and not received by me, the date of receipt is also mentioned as 28.11.2022 i.e., the date of passing the order by the Ld. CIT(A).
I say that, as a result there is a delay of 939 days in filing the appeal as computed from the date of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and is completely due to reasons beyond my control as stated above.
The Ld. AR requested for condoning the delay for 939 days. Considering facts narrated in the said affidavit the Ld. DR had not made any strong objection for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we find there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay for 939 days. So, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication.
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is a proprietor of S.B. International which is carrying on business of a trader, importer and exporter of iron and steel. The return was filed and the case was taken scrutiny under CASS, to verify the cash deposit as per AIR. During the assessment proceeding Ld. AO found that the total cash deposit amount of Rs.11,51,00,600/-. The assessee explained the said deposit before the Ld. AO by a letter dated 17.03.2015. Further, the assessee was unable to explain for claiming deduction claimed u/sec. 80C for non-submission of supporting documents and also the deduction of principal repayment of housing loan was also remain unexplained. The entire addition was made by the Ld. AO & had Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar framed the assessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee the reasonable opportunity of hearing but none was present before the Ld. CIT(A). Finally the appeal was passed ex parte for non-prosecution and upholds the impugned order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities.
The additions were confirmed in respect of cash deposits in the bank, rejection of the claim of deduction under section 80C due to non-submission of supporting documents, and disallowance of deduction towards principal repayment of housing loan, which remained unexplained before the revenue authorities. We find that the assessee had submitted a written explanation before the Ld. AO in respect of the cash deposits during the impugned assessment year vide letter dated 17.03.2015. However, without considering the said submission, the additions were confirmed. The assessee contended that he is operating the email ID “ggmetal10@gmail.com”, whereas the statutory notices were served on the email ID mentioned in the return of income, i.e., “sbinter2008@gmail.com”. The assessee has categorically stated in his sworn affidavit that none of the notices were served on either of the email IDs. Further, during the course of the present appeal proceedings, the Ld. AR submitted that due to severe turmoil in the assessee’s personal life, a request was made to the revenue authorities to provide Form-35 and relevant assessment records, which are presently not in the possession of the assessee. It was also brought to our notice that recovery proceedings have been initiated against the assessee by issuance of notice under Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar section 226(3) of the Act dated 23.07.2025. By way of a sworn affidavit, the assessee has further confirmed that during the COVID-19 pandemic he was residing in Sri Lanka and not in India. It was only after the amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes between the assessee and his spouse that he returned to India. We observe that at both stages before the revenue authorities there was a lack of effective representation on behalf of the assessee. The appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) substantially reflects the findings recorded in the assessment order. Considering the peculiar facts and the personal hardships faced by the assessee, we are of the view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to him. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the issues are left completely open for fresh consideration. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set-aside proceedings, and any evidence sought to be filed shall be considered in accordance with law. At the same time, the assessee is directed to remain diligent and fully cooperative to ensure expeditious disposal of the assessment proceedings.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd day of February 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER