Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 68 and 69(C) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to comply with notices from the Commissioner, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of their appeal. The assessee claimed non-receipt of physical notices as they had opted out of email communication.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim about not receiving physical notices despite opting out of email communication. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for fresh adjudication to ensure justice, imposing a cost on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal, dismissed ex-parte due to alleged non-compliance with notices, should be remanded for fresh consideration due to a dispute over the method of communication of notices.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 68, 69(C)
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 19.09.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/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 18.03.2024 under section 147 of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.6,79,630/- under Sections 68 and 69 (C) of the Act, respectively, as unexplained investments.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid additions by filing a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, despite issuing five notices, made no compliance, except seeking adjournments on two occasions. Thus, in the above constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal filed by the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately dismissed the same, affirming the aforesaid additions/disallowance.
The Assessee before us, has claimed that in Form No. 35, in response to the question, whether notice/communication may be sent on email, the Assessee has specifically mentioned “No”, but still the Ld. Commissioner did not send any notice in physical mode, which resulted in non-compliance by the Assessee. Further, the notices issued by the Assessee through email, as mentioned in Form No. 35 skipped from the attention of the assessee, and therefore the assessee is praying for a lenient view.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee.
We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the Assessee and the Ld. DR. Admittedly, the issues involved also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of supporting material and credible informations, which the Assessee failed to file or give, as also observed by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Further, the Assessee has specifically mentioned in Form No. 35 for not receiving the notice through email but still the Ld. Commissioner failed to send any notice in physical mode. Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we are of the considered view that real justice would be met by remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to a cost of Rs.11,000/-.
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from today. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notice(s) to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions and documents. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2026.