ANIL SRICHAND ROHRA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KALYAN

ITA 3274/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Srichand Rohra, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the failure of the First Appellate Authority to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as notices were sent to an incorrect email address. Additionally, the appellant contested the addition of business receipts as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the acceptance of the revised computation of income. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the notice delivery and discrepancies in the assessment of income from other sources, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705421 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL TALREJA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3274/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Anil Srichand Rohra, Shop 743, Pawai Chowk, Thaily Bazar, Ulhasnagar, PAN : AEGPR7262H ............... Appellant v/s ITO, Ward – 2(1), Kalyan ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Talreja Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 30/06/2025 Date of Order - 03/07/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeals, Delhi, hereinafter to be referred as \"The CIT Appeals (NFAC)\", this appeal petition is submitted on the following grounds, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another. ITA No.3274/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 2 \"1. The First Appellate Authority\" failed to provide the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant by serving notices to email address does not belonging to the appellant, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The Assessing Authority\" failed to establish any corroborative evidence for alleged cash deposits in bank account maintained by the appellant, which in fact are duly recorded in books of accounts. 3. The Assessing Authority\" erred in adding the entire business receipts, as un-explained money u/s-69A, ignoring the Income tax return filed submitted during the course of assessment proceedings u/s-147. 4. Updated or Revised Computation of total income derived from the books of accounts, maintained and corresponding taxes paid by the appellant may be accepted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration, filed his return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.2,48,200/-. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. However, in response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee did not file his return of income. Further, in response to the statutory notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee only submitted the computation of income and a copy of the return originally filed. However, there was no explanation or documentary evidence with regard to the source of large cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,07,52,865/- made by the assessee during the year under consideration in its bank account maintained with the ICICI Bank Limited. Accordingly, vide order dated 28.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act, the AO considered the entire cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to want of prosecution as the assessee had failed to comply ITA No.3274/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 3 with any of the notices of hearing issued by the learned CIT(A). Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that none of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were received by the assessee as the same were sent to an e-mail address which was different from the registered e-mail address provided by the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income under the presumptive provision of section 44AB of the Act and hence the entire cash deposit was already offered to tax by the assessee. In this regard, by referring to the computation sheet annexed along with the assessment order, the learned AR submitted that the income was treated as income from business by the AO. The learned AR further submitted that the AO has considered the income at Rs.2,48,200/-, however, the same is in fact Rs.3,36,229/-. 6. From the perusal of the computation sheet, we further find that the AO has considered income from other sources at Rs.2,10,09,330/-, however, there is no such discussion regarding the same in the assessment order. Further, as per the computation of total income furnished by the assessee, the assessee has only declared income from other sources at Rs.2,174/-. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo consideration after providing the reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.3274/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 4 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/07/2025 Sd/- NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 03/07/2025 Prabhat 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 "