BAJRANGLLAL MANGALCHAND SHARMA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6837/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the CIT(A) regarding reassessment and additions made under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues revolved around the validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 148A(d), the alleged delay in filing appeals, and the merits of the additions made to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper consideration of the merits and without condoning the delay, which was attributed to an inadvertent error by the assessee's previous tax consultant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397083 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADNYA GHOLAP
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN VAJANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6837/MUM/2024(AY: 2017–18) (Physical hearing) Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma,C-403, Prathmesh Horizon,Link Road, Opp. Don Bosco School, Borivali West, Mumbai-400091. Vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(1) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN: ANEPS6173K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Ketan Vajani Revenue by Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/05/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 06.12.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing 1 the appeal without issuing any notice for hearing & thus no opportunity was given to the appellant & therefore the order is violative of principles of natural justice & bad in law. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that appeal filed is beyond time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without condoning technical delay in filing of appeal. He ought to have condoned the delay. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in stating that appellant has not requested for condonation of delay ignoring the fact that appellant requested for condonation of delay in statement of facts and explained the facts & reasons of delay. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after 29.03.2022 by the ITA no. 6837/MUM/2024 Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma 2 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid as the same is contrary to the provisions contained in section 151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and therefore the consequent reassessment made on this invalid notice is bad in law and liable to be quashed and annulled. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the Id. A. O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 19,30,500/- (New issue) u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the fact that no addition has been made for the amount of Rs. 13,20,500/- u/s 50C of the Act which was the reason for reopening the assessment. When no addition is made for the original issue then no other addition can be made in law in reassessment therefore impugned addition cannot stand the test of appeal and needs to be deleted. 6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as it does not bear DIN and therefore consequent reassessment made on invalid notice is void abinitio & bad in law and therefore liable to be quashed & annulled. 7.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the Id. A. O. has erred in passing impugned order u/s 144 without giving proper & adequate opportunity to the appellant & therefore it is violative of principles of natural justice & is bad in law 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 19,30,500/- made under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. He ought to have deleted the addition. 9. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or substitute any ground/grounds and to add any new ground or grounds on or before the appeal is disposed off” The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal: “10. The assessing officer has erred in initiating the reassessment in the case of the appellant without obtaining proper sanction as required under section 151(ii) of the Act. The appellant respectfully submits that in absence of the valid sanction the entire reassessment proceedings are invalid and the same deserves to be quashed. The appellant, therefore, prays that the reassessment made in his case may please be quashed. ITA no. 6837/MUM/2024 Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma 3 11. The assessment unit has erred in making an addition of Rs. 19,30,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the investment made by the appellant is only Rs. 2,06,806/- and further that the said investment is made in the financial year 2019-20.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information with the Assessing officer (AO) that the assessee has sold immovable property by showing sale consideration of Rs. 19,30,500/-, whereas a Stamp Vvaluation Aauthority valued the property for the purpose of registration of transaction of Rs. 32,51,000/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 13,20,500/- vis-à-vis the sale consideration declared by assessee and the value determined by Stamp Vvaluation Aauthority (SVA). The AO further noted that no return of income was filed by the assessee for relevant assessment year. AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 02.07.2022. Before, issuing notice u/s. 148, the AO passed order u/s. 148A(d). The AO recorded that despite warning, the assessee neither filed return of income nor made any response. The AO added difference of sale value and the value determined by SVA Rs. 1930500/-, while passing the assessment order. The assessment order was passed on 19.01.2023 u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 and 144B. 3. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 17.08.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) in para 3 of his order recorded that there was delay of 415 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). In form 35, the assessee has mentioned that there is no delay in filing appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that assessee has not given any reason for explaining delay. Thus, the appeal of assessee was dismissed as unadmitted. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. ITA no. 6837/MUM/2024 Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma 4 4. I have heard the submission of Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee and the Learned Senior Departmental Revenue (Ld. DR) for the revenue. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the statement of fact mentioned in the Form 35, the assessee has explained the fact that while filing first appeal on 23.06.2023, the Chartered Accountant (CA) of the assessee inadvertently filed blank appeal. On verification of portal it was noticed that all the column in the appeal were blank. Such mistake was came in the notice of new tax Consultant while filing appeal against the penalty order. The assessee immediately filed fresh appeal. Thus, there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal belatedly The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has already place on record copy of screenshot of ITBA portal showing of filing first appeal in time, wherein all details were left blank. Copy of acknowledgement and Form-35 is filed at page 11 to 17 of paper book. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and he may be allowed to make the submission on merit. On merit, the ld AR of the assessee raised various factual and legal submissions, despite repeatedly asking that there the order of AO as well as ld CIT(A) is ex-perte and there is no specific adjudication on merit. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submits that there is no adjudication on various issues on merit either by Ld. CIT(A) or by AO. The assessee has not furnished any detail before AO as well as before Ld. CIT(A). In case the delay is condoned only at the best matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) or AO for adjudication and consideration on the objection of the assessee either on law or on fact by the lower authority. On the plea of ITA no. 6837/MUM/2024 Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma 5 condonation of delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A), the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the bench may take its decision in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the rival submission on both the parties and perused the record carefully. I find that AO passed the assessment order in ex-parte proceeding. As per the contention of Ld. AR of the assessee, the first appeal was filed before CIT(A) on 23.06.2025 which was within time, however on perusal of acknowledgement and copy of Form- 35, I find that all the entries in Form 35 was left blank, whether intentional or unintentionally for the reasons best known to the assessee for his earlier representative. However, facts remains the same that there is no adjudication on merit by first appellate authority. Rather, the first appellate authority dismissed the case of assessee in limine by not condoning delay in filing the appeal. I find that before me, the assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A). Thus, keeping in view the principle of natural justice and the fact that assessee has engaged professional to the file his appeal and the appeal was not filed properly. Therefore, in my view the assessee should not suffer by the negligence committed by his consultant. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal before ld CIT(A) is condoned. 7. On merits of the case I find that the assessee not filed any submissions or objection before AO, nor the appeal was admitted by the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. The assessee is given liberty to raise all factual or legal issue before Ld. CIT(A) in including the legal issues raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds of appeal. The assessee is further ITA no. 6837/MUM/2024 Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma 6 directed to more vigilant in future in making timely compliance with the aforesaid confirmation. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 27.05.2025. Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 27/05/2025 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. "