Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf for the hearing. The notice of hearing was sent via RPAD and email, and over 30 days had lapsed since its issuance. The Tribunal considered the service of notice to be valid under the General Clauses Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Ground No. 1 was dismissed because the assessee failed to provide any rebuttal to the contention that the appeal against the quantum addition had already been dismissed. Ground No. 2 was dismissed as it was raised for the first time before the Tribunal without any application for permission.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed ex-parte and whether the grounds of appeal raised are valid.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 20.11.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai for the A.Y: 2012-13.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. From the file, we observed that the notice of the present appeal for hearing was already issued to the assessee through RPAD and also through e-mail id. ldjoshico@hotmail.com as per the report of registry. Since the notice was issued on the address given by the assessee and 30 days have already been lapsed from the date of issuance of notice therefore while drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service has been validly effected upon the assessee therefore considering these circumstances assessee is proceeded ex-parte.
Ground No. 1: Advance of Rs. 4,00,000/- recd. on sale of flat 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,23,600/-u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that impugned Unsecured Loans taken by the Assessee have not been reflected in bank statement submitted by Assessee Company and failed to take into consideration the detailed submissions that were filed during the appeal proceedings.
2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the AO in his Notice u/s. 274 r.w. 271(1)(c) dated 27-03-2015 failed to strike off or specify the limb under which the charge of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied i.e. Concealment of Income OR Inaccurate particulars of Income. The Appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal
. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee relates to 3. challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty by AO. In this regard, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had dealt with this ground and upheld the imposition of penalty by recording the reasons that the appeal against the quantum addition had been dismissed by NFAC vide its order dated 20.11.2025, nothing has been placed on Ground No.2 raised by the assessee was not before
4. Ld. CIT(A) and no application for seeking permission for raising this ground before us for the first time has been filed. Therefore this ground also stands dismissed.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2026.