PRANAY MOHAN LOKEGAONKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7400/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2026AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. Commissioner's order was liable to be set aside as no notice was issued to the assessee, nor was an opportunity of being heard provided. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's claim of non-taxable income.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions on account of unexplained investment and long-term capital gain. The assessee appealed to the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal as infructuous without issuing notice or providing an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal without providing natural justice, and whether the additions made by the AO are sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 249(4)(b)

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale
For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

O R D E R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 07.10.2025, 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. 2015-16.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 29.03.2022 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.1,12,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and claim of long-term capital gain respectively.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, filed a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner challenging the aforesaid additions; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner, by holding that the Assessee had failed to make the payment of an amount equal to the amount, which was due on its income and also had not requested exemption under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (4) of section 249 of the Act, and therefore, the appeal is infructuous and dismissed.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, from the impugned order, it appears that the Ld. Commissioner, before deciding the appeal filed by the assessee, has not issued any notice to the Assessee and/or has not provided any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, on this peculiar fact, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5.

Even otherwise, the Assessee has claimed that the income earned by the Assessee was non-taxable and falls within the limits of the non-taxable parameters, as prescribed by the Government and therefore, the Assessee was not required to pay any advance tax.

6.

Thus, considering the above peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we are inclined to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms.

8.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2026.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →