AMITA MANISH KASLIWAL,MUMBAI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2216/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amita Manish Kasliwal, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 49,97,050 to her income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer after rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the net profit at 15% of gross receipts, contrary to the appellant's declared 4.66%. The appellant argued that the assessment and subsequent appeal were conducted ex-parte and without proper notice, as the notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the procedural lapses and thus decided to restore the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315402 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHABH MEHTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2216/MUM/2025 (AY : 2021-22) (Physical hearing) Amita Manish Kasliwal 704, Alpha Residency, Eksar Road, Yogi Nagar, Borivali West, Maharashtra-400092. [PAN No. DHFPK7543K Vs ACIT, Central Circle-5(4) Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Maharashtra-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rushabh Mehta CA Revenue by Shri Ram KrishnKedia, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeal 28.03.2025 Date of hearing 13.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.05.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 17.01.2025for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act is invalid, bad in law and grossly in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. (a) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai erred in facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,97,050/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and estimating the net profit @ 15% of gross receipts based on his own assumptions and surmises. (b) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai failed to appreciate that the appellant had already offered net profit @ 4.66% of gross receipts and therefore ought not to have estimated net profit at higher rate of 15% which is not commensurate to her business of contracts relating to construction and maintenance of roads, rails, bridges, tunnels, ports, harbour, runways etc. ITA No. 2216/Mum/2025 Amita Manish Kasliwal 2 3.Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or drop all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties and record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 17.01.2025 and appeal before Tribunal was filed on 28.03.2025. Thus, there is delay of 10 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed her affidavit in explaining the delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) furnished the e- mail address as of [e-mail]. However, no notice either of hearing of appeal or passing of impugned order was sent to assessee on such e-mail address. Rather the notices were sent on different e-mail i.e. [e-mail]. The assessee when checked on ITBA portal realised that appeal of assessee had already been dismissed. The assessee immediately took step to file appeal before this Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. Thus, delay in filing appeal may be condoned. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. On such notices were also sent on different e-mail id as explained while explaining the delay in filing appeal. Thus, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in making compliance before lower authorities. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit and matter may be restored to the file of assessing office for passing the order afresh. He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance before lower authorities. ITA No. 2216/Mum/2025 Amita Manish Kasliwal 3 3. On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue on the plea of condonation of delay submits that bench may take appropriate view on considering the affidavit filed by assessee. However, on merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has not made any compliance either before ld. Assessing Officer or before ld. CIT(A). The assessee was given ample opportunity. The assessee does not deserve any further problems to contest case on merit. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay. We find that while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee provided her e-mail as [e-mail] for the purpose of service of notice. However, on perusal of different screen shot of ITBA portal, we find that no such notice was sent by ld. CIT(A) on the e- mail provided on Form-35, rather notices were sent of different e-mail id i.e. [e-mail]. Thus, considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, we find that reasonable cause that impugned order was not served on assessee immediately on dismissing the appeal. The assessee realised about the dismissal of appeal when he checked ITBA portal. Thus, delay in filing the appal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. We find that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte. On perusal of various copies of screen shot furnished by ld. AR of the assessee, we find that notices were sent on different e-mail address i.e. [e-mail] by ld. AO as well as by ld. CIT(A). Thus, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the grounds of appeal raised by assessing officer are restored back to the file of assessing officer for passing ITA No. 2216/Mum/2025 Amita Manish Kasliwal 4 the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, assessing officer was provided fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/05/2025. Sd/- SSSSSS OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:13 /05/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "