DINKAR KESHAV KSHIRSAGAR,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1964/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dinkar Keshav Kshirsagar, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which dismissed his appeal on grounds of non-prosecution. The original assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act added Rs. 10,77,000 as unexplained income due to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the grounds due to the appellant's non-appearance. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper notice of the hearings due to an error in the email address used by the CIT(A). The ITAT found merit in the appellant's claims and restored the case to the assessing officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707026 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) - [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINMAY; TAKING
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1964/MUM/2025 (AY: 2017-18) (Physical hearing) DinkarKeshav Kshirsagar 22, Laxman, Bhalerao Marg, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400004. Vs ITO, Ward-19(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Sh. Chinmay, CA Revenue by Sh. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2025 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 29.01.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ”1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [\"the leamed Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 29.01.2025 may be set aside and the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 29.01.2025 as passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non- prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds/additional grounds of appeal and the issues under consideration. The said order being in violation of the provisions of Section 250 and 251 of the Act and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in \"CIT vs. PremkumarArjundasLuthra (HUF)- [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)\" may be quashed. ITA No. 1964/Mum/2025 Dinkar Keshave Kshirsagar 2 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 10,77,000/- as unexplained income being unsustainable in law may be deleted.” 2. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee could not avail reasonable and fair opportunity either during assessment or before first appellate stage. The assessment was completed under section 144. While filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee has given email address as of [e-mail] for the purpose of service of notice etc. However, no such notices were served through such email address. The assessee while checking the status of appeal filed that his appeal has already been dismissed on 29.01.2025. The assessee immediately filed appeal before Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee furnished copy of screen shot of ITBA portal showing the fact that notices under section 250 was sent by ld. CIT(A) on the email address other than the email mentioned on Form 35. For non-appearance before assessing officer, the assessee, while filing first appeal, in his statement of fact contended that due to old age related issues and medical reasons, the assessee could not respond to certain notice of assessing officer. The assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for restoring the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that assessment was completed under section 144. The assessing officer by passing the ITA No. 1964/Mum/2025 Dinkar Keshave Kshirsagar 3 assessment order made addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 10,77,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A taxed the same under section 115BBE. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by taking view that appeal was fixed for hearing on three occasions. The assessee neither responded nor sought any adjournment nor file any written submission. We find that ld. CIT(A) has issued notice through email, other than the email address provided at the time of filling appeal. Thus, considering the overall facts, in our view, the assessee has shown reasonable cause for non-submission of written submission before ld. CIT(A). We, further find that assessee was ex-parte even before assessing officer, therefore, keeping in view of the fact that in the event of filing any submission, evidence or explanation before ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) may require remand report from assessing officer, hence the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to avoid the technicality of remand report. In the result, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 07/07/2025. Sd/- PADMAVATHY S ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:07/07/2025 Biswajit ITA No. 1964/Mum/2025 Dinkar Keshave Kshirsagar 4 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 "