MR. YAGNESH GIRJASHANKAR MRHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 32(1)(7), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's irresponsible conduct and defiance of notices but also acknowledged the delay in taking up the appeal, partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner could not decide the issues properly due to a lack of relevant documents. Therefore, for the ends of substantial justice, the case was remanded.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 30.11.2023, which was passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC). The Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions of Rs. 9,99,312/- and Rs. 9,46,099/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee's initial appeal to the Ld. Commissioner was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision on merits, considering the assessee's conduct and the procedural delays.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 30.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act has made the Mr. Yagnesh Girjashankar Mehta additions of Rs.9,99,312/- and Rs.9,46,099/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 29.01.2020 which was taken into consideration after one year i.e. on 19.02.2021 and thereafter more than one year on 18.05.2022 and again after more than one year on 23.08.2023 by issuing notices which remained non-complied with. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee and affirmed the aforesaid additions by holding that the entire proceedings are based on the facts and the assessment is completed on best judgment basis and the assessee failed both during the assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings to make out a case as to how the ground agitated should be decided in its favour.
The assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. If we consider the conduct of the assessee then it goes to show that the assessee remained irresponsible and acted in defiance to the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner, however, if we consider the other aspect of the case, as the appeal was filed by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner on 29.01.2020 which was taken into consideration initially during Covid-19/Corona period and thereafter after a gap of more than one year or so. Even otherwise the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of the relevant reply/documents was unable to decide the issues as involved in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for the ends of substantial justice and just decision of the case, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Commissioner.
Mr. Yagnesh Girjashankar Mehta
The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2024.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
