APURVA MUKESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 41(2)(1) MUMBAI, KAUTILIYA BHAVAN

ITA 6367/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Apurva Mukesh Thakkar, who appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, which were based on ex parte assessments and additions of unexplained bank credits totaling Rs. 7,86,59,827. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present his case or substantiate his claims during the initial assessments and appeals. The primary contention was that these bank credits were business receipts already recorded in the assessee's books. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the lack of proper hearing and the procedural lapses in the earlier assessments, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831023 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRISURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIPARTH J. BHATT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice; Recovery proceedings
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) APURVA MUKESH THAKKAR 11 DR RP Road and NS Mataji Bungalow Bldg Cross Road Near City Bank ATM Mumbai 400080 - Mumbai Vs. ITO WARD 41 (2)(1) MUMBAI Room No. 234 Kautilya Bhavan C41 to C43 Block BKC Bandra East Mumbai 400051, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ADSPT8293K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by ShriParth J. Bhatt Revenue by ShriSurendra Mohan (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the assessment year 2011–12, arising out of the assessment order dated 22.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has reported a delay of 494 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by a sworn affidavit, explaining the circumstances leading to such delay. 3. From a perusal of the condonation petition and the accompanying affidavit, it is evident that the assessee has set out, in a chronological manner, the reasons for the delayed filing. In substance, the assessee has averred that: i. The order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 dated 29.10.2021 was never served upon the assessee, either electronically or through physical mode. ii. The assessee was under a bona fide belief that the first appeal was still pending, as the matter was earlier being handled by his Chartered Accountant and thereafter remained unattended due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. iii. The assessee came to know about the dismissal of the first appeal only in March 2024, when coercive recovery proceedings were initiated and the demand notice was Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar issued, pursuant to which a fresh Chartered Accountant was engaged. iv. Immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the impugned order, the assessee took steps to obtain copies of the CIT(A)’s order, sought appropriate legal advice, and thereafter proceeded to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. v. The assessee has categorically stated on oath that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred solely due to lack of knowledge of the appellate order and incorrect recording of the email ID on the Income Tax Portal, resulting in non-receipt of electronic communications. 4. The affidavit further states that no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee and that grave prejudice would be caused if the appeal is dismissed on technical grounds without adjudication on merits, particularly when substantial additions have been made. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative has fairly stated that he has no objection to the condonation of delay. 6. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the expression “sufficient cause” Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar should receive a liberal and pragmatic construction, so as to advance substantial justice, and that a litigant should not be shut out at the threshold when the explanation offered is bona fide and supported by an affidavit. Having regard to the reasons explained in the condonation petition and the affidavit, the fact that the assessee has acted with reasonable promptness upon gaining knowledge of the impugned order, and there being no opposition from the Revenue, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 494 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Facts of the Case 7. The assessee is an individual and, during the relevant previous year, was carrying on business as a proprietor of M/s Bhavana Televentures. The assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information from the office of the DDIT (Investigation) that the assessee had allegedly carried out suspicious bank transactions during F.Y. 2010–11. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed his Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar return of income on 19.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 8,42,310/-. 8. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had bank accounts with NKGSB Bank and ICICI Bank, and that the total credits therein aggregated to Rs. 7,86,59,827/-, the break-up being as under: i. Account CD/184 with NKGSB Bank: Rs. 2,86,26,218/- ii. Account CC/21 with NKGSB Bank: Rs. 4,99,68,910/- iii. Account No. 623805024468 with ICICI Bank, Laxmi Tower, BKC: Rs. 64,699/- 9. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation and supporting evidences in respect of the aforesaid credits. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144, and treated the entire sum of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The said amount was brought to tax under section 115BBE, and the total income was assessed at Rs. 7,95,02,133/-. 10. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that the assessment was completed ex parte and that the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar addition was made on account of unexplained bank credits. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that he was not granted adequate opportunity, that the bank accounts were duly reflected in the books of account, and that the credits represented business receipts forming part of the turnover disclosed in the profit and loss account. 11. The CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee failed to substantiate his contentions with documentary evidence. The CIT(A) further held that sufficient opportunity was granted during the assessment proceedings and that the assessee did not avail the same. On these premises, the CIT(A), dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,86,59,827/-. 11.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC is bad in law on various counts and that the same should be set aside. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in confirming the order passed by the AO being violative of natural justice and thereby is bad in law and that the same should be set aside. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- without the Assessee having effective adequate opportunity to make submissions on merits and that the addition made by the AO, so confirmed by the CIT Appeal NFAC should be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has passed an ex-parte order without the Assessee being able to submit supporting evidences and documents substantiating his returned income and thereby the said ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC should be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has not considered the preliminary submission of the Assessee that the amount of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- added by the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has already been accounted for and forms part of the sales of the Assessee in his audited books of accounts for FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) and as such the said addition should be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has not considered the balance sheet and profit and loss account for FY 2010-11 submitted by the Assessee reflecting his turnover and closing bank balances which incorporates the disputed addition amount of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- as part of sales of the Assessee and thereby the said addition of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- made by the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC should be deleted and annulled. 7. The Appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter, substitute and modify any or all the grounds at the time of hearing. 12. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated that both the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were passed ex parte, without proper appreciation of the facts and evidences. It was submitted that the bank accounts maintained with NKGSB Bank were regular business accounts, duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee, and that the credits therein represented sales and business receipts already reflected in the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar profit and loss account for F.Y. 2010–11. It was further submitted that the ICICI Bank account was not a regular business account. 13. The learned AR candidly submitted that the assessee could not place all relevant documents before the Assessing Officer at the relevant point of time. However, pursuant to the directions of the Bench, the assessee has filed a written undertaking dated 19.01.2026, undertaking to furnish before the Assessing Officer complete documentary evidences, including bank statements, bank ledgers, sales and purchase ledgers, invoices, audited financial statements, and other supporting records. 14. On the strength of the said undertaking, it was prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. 15. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. However, he fairly stated that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the assessee cooperating fully and furnishing all evidences as undertaken. 16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 and that the first appellate order was also passed Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar without effective adjudication on the merits of the evidences claimed to be available with the assessee. 17. The addition under section 69A has been made by treating the entire bank credits as unexplained money, without examining the assessee’s claim that the credits represented business receipts duly recorded in the regular books of account. The assessee has now filed a written undertaking before the Tribunal, listing in detail the nature of documents proposed to be furnished before the Assessing Officer. 18. In our considered opinion, having regard to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of substantial justice, the matter deserves to be examined afresh at the level of the Assessing Officer, after granting the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. 19. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A), and the assessment order on this issue, and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer shall examine the evidences to be furnished by the assessee and decide the issue by passing a speaking order. 20. The assessee is directed to strictly adhere to the undertaking given before the Tribunal and to cooperate fully in the reassessment proceedings. Needless to clarify, the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 6367/Mum/2025 Apurva Mukesh Thakkar Officer shall decide the issue independently, without being influenced by the observations made in the earlier orders. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22/01/2026 RY, Sr. P.S. आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "