BENCHMARK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,THANE V. NFAC, MUMBAI

ITA 4624/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Benchmark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, challenging the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The primary issues raised included the legality of the reassessment proceedings, the absence of mandatory notices, and procedural lapses such as the non-generation of Document Identification Number (DIN) and incorrect issuance of notices. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the non-appearance of the assessee, which the Tribunal found to be due to incorrect email communication. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33061 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARESH DESHPANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAJ MANGLA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148; 143(2); 250; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4624/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Benchmark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.A/2, Building-2, Sadhana Dhuri Complex, Vasai Road, West, Thane, Maharashtra – 401202 PAN : AADCB3918N ............... Appellant v/s ITO, Ward – 4(1)(3), Mumbai ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Niraj Mangla, Revenue by : Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.AR Date of Hearing – 03/04/2025 Date of Order - 04/04/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 20/11/2023, 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: - ITA No.4624/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) 2 “1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case. therefore liable to be annulled. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in dismissing the appeal of assessee due to non-appearance that too without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised. 3. That the reassessment order passed is further illegal and not tenable because of completion of reassessment proceedings without issue of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 4. That the reassessment proceedings undertaken by Ld. AO are further illegal and not tenable under the law because no Document Identification Number (DIN) was generated for the reasons recorded on which approval was obtained for reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. 5. That the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act (unamended) vide issue of notice dated 31/03/2021 is illegal and non- tenable under the law because of issue of said notice on 01/04/2021. 6. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 3.42.00.000/- under Section 68 of the Act. 7. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in assessing sale proceeds of investments as unexplained cash credits leading to double taxation of said amount. 8. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in assessing amounts refunded during the year under consideration itself as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.” 3. Having considered the submissions and perused the material available on record, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the hearing notices were sent by the learned CIT(A) on a different email address and not the one provided by the assessee in Form no.35. The learned AR submitted that since the assessee was not aware about the notices of ITA No.4624/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) 3 hearing, therefore, the hearings could not be attended before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that there was no willful or deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to not comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). From the perusal of the copy of hearing notices furnished by the learned AR, we find that the notices were sent to the email addresses [e-mail] and [e-mail], while the email address as mentioned in Form no.35 is [e-mail]. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. During the hearing, the learned AR undertook that the hearing notice issued to the email address as mentioned in Form no.35, i.e. [e-mail], shall be complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) is directed to issue the hearing notice(s) on the aforesaid email address, unless at a subsequent stage, the assessee wishes to change its email address for the purpose of communication of hearing notice, for which the assessee is directed to intimate the learned CIT(A) in advance. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed ITA No.4624/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) 4 without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/04/2025 Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 04/04/2025 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 "