GOLDIE SUD,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

SA 56/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Goldie Sud against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which dismissed his appeal ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee argued that he did not receive the notices as he had no access to the Income Tax Portal and the contact details linked to his PAN were incorrect. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions and documents properly, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 361246 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: B.N.Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHANGEPATIL PUSHKARAJ RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: GOLDIE SUD
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Application of stay
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Goldie Sud 191-192, Shaheed Bhagatsingh CHSL, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East Mumbai – 400059 PAN : AMNPS2413C ............... Appellant v/s ITO, Ward - 24(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012 ……………… Respondent S.A. No. 56/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025) (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Goldie Sud 191-192, Shaheed Bhagatsingh CHSL, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East Mumbai – 400059 PAN : AMNPS2413C ............... Applicant v/s ITO, Ward - 24(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Goldie Sud Revenue by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Date of Hearing – 15/05/2025 Date of Order - 21/05/2025 2 ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 S.A. No. 56/Mum/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 24/08/2023, 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 2009-10. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 569 days. Along with the present appeal, the assessee has filed an application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal. As per the assessee, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) has still not been received by him from the Income Tax Department, and the copy of the impugned order filed with the present appeal was provided during the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petition filed by him. Further, the assessee submitted that he attempted to log in to the Income Tax Portal. However, till date, he has no access to the Income Tax Portal as the email address and phone number mentioned in the Income Tax Portal against his PAN belong to somebody else. In this regard, the assessee has also placed on record the screenshots from the Income Tax Portal. Further, the assessee submitted that he did not receive any notice of hearing as mentioned in the impugned order. The 3 ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 S.A. No. 56/Mum/2025 assessee has also placed on record the various letters written by him to the Income Tax Department regarding the difficulty in accessing the Income Tax Portal. Thus, having considered the submissions of the assessee, which are duly supported by the documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on the merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration did not file his return of income. On the basis of the AIR information, it was revealed that the assessee has deposited cash of more than Rs. 10 lakhs during the year in a savings account. As the assessee did not file his return of income, accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20/03/2014 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. As per the AIR information, the assessee deposited Rs. 56,15,500 in Punjab National Bank and Rs. 63,22,000 in Bank of India, during the year under consideration. In the absence of any response from the assessee pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act and a final show cause notice were also issued to the assessee. However, the same were returned undelivered, and there was no 4 ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 S.A. No. 56/Mum/2025 compliance on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the assessment on a best judgment basis based on the material available on record. Vide order dated 31/03/2015 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,19,37,500. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex parte in the absence of any reply from the assessee in response to the notices issued during the hearing. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the assessee, appearing in person, submitted that notices as mentioned on page 6 of the impugned order were never served on him. It was further submitted that since the assessee did not have access to the Income Tax Portal, therefore, he had no knowledge about any of these notices being issued by the learned CIT(A). By referring to the communication dated 31/10/2022, on page 126 of the appeal set, the assessee submitted that the communication window with the learned CIT(A) was enabled only from 31/10/2022, and therefore, the claim that the notices, i.e. 16/07/2020 and 29/12/2020, were issued and served on the assessee by the learned CIT(A) has no basis. During the hearing, the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A), prior to the migration of 5 ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 S.A. No. 56/Mum/2025 his appeal, filed on 28/09/2015, to the National Faceless Appeal Centre in terms of the Notification dated 08/03/2016, issued notice on 14/03/2017, forming part of the appeal set on page 111, wherein the learned CIT(A) specifically note that the assessee attended his office on 22/02/2017. Further, by referring to the letter dated 11/04/2018 by the learned CIT(A) to the ITO-24(1)(4), Mumbai, forming part of the appeal set on page 117, the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) sought the remand report from the AO in response to the submission dated 14/06/2017 filed by the assessee. During the hearing, the assessee also referred to his letter dated 27/10/2021, whereby he prayed the learned CIT(A) to decide his appeal in the absence of the remand report from the AO, since 3 years have elapsed and no remand report has been filed by the AO despite specific direction by the learned CIT(A). 6. Having considered the submissions and perused the aforesaid documents as placed on record by the assessee, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), while passing the impugned order, has not considered any of the submissions as filed by the assessee before migration of the appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre. It is further evident from the perusal of the impugned order that there is no reference to the notices issued during the physical hearing and the submissions filed by the assessee. We further find that the learned CIT(A) in limine dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, placing 6 ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 S.A. No. 56/Mum/2025 reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N.Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC), merely on the basis of non- compliance with notices by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is further evident that the assessment was also concluded on a best judgment basis under section 144 of the Act in the absence of a response/details being filed by the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the AO. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to furnish all the details/submissions in support of its claim. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the matter is being restored to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, 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. 7 ITA No. 1735/MUM/2025 S.A. No. 56/Mum/2025 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Since the appeal by the assessee has been decided, the stay application filed by the assessee, being S.A. No.56/Mum/2025, for the assessment year 2009-10, has become infructuous and therefore is dismissed. As the matter is being restored to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, the AO is also directed to reconsider the assessee’s submission in respect of the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Act. 10. To sum up, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, while the stay application is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/05/2025 Sd/- NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 21/05/2025 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 "