AI Insights
This case involves an appeal by Sunil Mohanlal Lahori against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issues in the appeal included the disallowance of business loss, additions related to sundry creditors under section 68, and disallowances related to brokerage and deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on an ex-parte basis due to non-compliance by the assessee, who failed to appear or submit necessary documents, attributed to health issues and travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ITAT, considering the circumstances and the non-adjudication on merits, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123587 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
03-05-2023
Assessment Year
2016-2017
Appeal Filed On
29-01-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 283/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Mohanlal Lahori, 9, Janta Industrial Compound, 162 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013. Vs. Dy. CIT-22(1), Income tax Office, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AAAPL 4422 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue by : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR Date of Hearing : 04/05/2023 Date of pronouncement : 11/05/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowing of business loss of Rs. 89,461. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal related to addition of sundry creditors under section 68, disallowance of Brokerage and disallowance of deduction under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,54,47473/ account of increase of sundry creditors under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of brokerage of Rs. 11,00,000/- 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred i section 54F to Rs. 1,36,50,000 as against claimed by appellant at Rs. 2,41,73,404. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.10.2 declaring total income by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143( on 28.12.2018, the Assessing Officer made certain disallowance/additions to the returned income. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal partly. However, in view of non issues on ex-parte basis case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal related to addition of sundry creditors under section 68, disallowance of Brokerage and e of deduction under section 54F of Income Tax 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,54,47473/ account of increase of sundry creditors under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of brokerage of Rs. under section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming restriction of deduction under section 54F to Rs. 1,36,50,000 as against claimed by appellant at Rs. 2,41,73,404. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.10.2 declaring total income at Rs.63,13,880/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143( on 28.12.2018, the Assessing Officer made certain disallowance/additions to the returned income. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal partly. However, in view of non-compliance by the assessee, he basis invoking the decision of the Tribunal v. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 2 ITA No. No. 283/M/2023 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal related to addition of sundry creditors under section 68, disallowance of Brokerage and e of deduction under section 54F of Income Tax 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,54,47473/- on account of increase of sundry creditors under section 68 of 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of brokerage of Rs. under section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. n confirming restriction of deduction under section 54F to Rs. 1,36,50,000 as against claimed by Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.10.2016 . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2018, the Assessing Officer made certain On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal partly. assessee, he decided few invoking the decision of the Tribunal in the v. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38-ITD-320. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “8. Finding on Ground of Appeal No. 2,3 and 6 The aforesaid non compliances appellant has nothing to say in the matter of these Grounds of Appeal in the present appeal. Thus, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of these Grounds of Appeal in the present appeal and liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum"VIGILATIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS,JURASUBVENIUNT"Considering, the relying on the decision of the Hon'ble, ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India It. reported in 38 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT (1997) reported in223 are hereby dismissed.Thus, the below mentionedadditions/disallowances made by the AO are hereby confirmed. • Addition of Sundry Creditors us 68 2) • Disallowance of brokerage/ (GOANo.3) • Disallowance of deduction u/s 54F (GOA-6)” 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the containing pages 1 to 51 and also filed an affidavit reasons for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant part of the affidavit filed by the authorized representative of the assessee is reproduced as under: “I Himanshu Gandhi (Authorized Presentative of Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori, age Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 8. Finding on Ground of Appeal No. 2,3 and 6 The aforesaid non compliances reveals beyond doubt that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter of these Grounds of Appeal in the present appeal. Thus, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of these Grounds of Appeal in the present appeal andthese grounds of appeal are liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum"VIGILATIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS,JURASUBVENIUNT"Considering, the relying on the decision of the Hon'ble, ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India It. reported in 38 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT (1997) eported in223-ITR-480, the Grounds of Appeal No. 2,3 & 6 are hereby dismissed.Thus, the below mentionedadditions/disallowances made by the AO are hereby confirmed. • Addition of Sundry Creditors us 68 - Rs.2,54,47,473/ • Disallowance of brokerage/Commission - Rs.11,00,000/ • Disallowance of deduction u/s 54F - Rs. 1,36,50,000/ Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 51 and also filed an affidavit compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant part of the affidavit filed by the authorized representative of the assessee is reproduced as under: I Himanshu Gandhi (Authorized Presentative of Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori, age-31, having office address at 16th Floor, D Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 3 ITA No. No. 283/M/2023 8. Finding on Ground of Appeal No. 2,3 and 6 reveals beyond doubt that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter of these Grounds of Appeal in the present appeal. Thus, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of these Grounds of s of appeal are liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum"VIGILATIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS,JURASUBVENIUNT"Considering, the facts and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble, ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India It. reported in 38-ITD-320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT (1997) 480, the Grounds of Appeal No. 2,3 & 6 are hereby dismissed.Thus, the below mentionedadditions/disallowances made by the AO are Rs.2,54,47,473/- (GOA- Rs.11,00,000/- Rs. 1,36,50,000/- filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 51 and also filed an affidavit submitting the compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant part of the affidavit filed by the authorized representative of the assessee I Himanshu Gandhi (Authorized Presentative of Mr. Sunil office address at 16th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Tower, kamala mills, compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai a) Originally appeal was filed before the CIT(A) and case was fixed for hearing in February 2020. That personally appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) at Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai. But due to COVID the hearing was not heard. b) Family of Mr. Sun Mohan Lahori was staying in UAE. And during COVID lockdown we faces various issue due to tr restriction as being a Senior 2020 he also left for UAK. c) But unfortunately, on 06th December, 2020 he tested positive for COVID for 45 days as per UAE norms. Thereafter he come b India on 03.01.2021. But after that Second Wave of COVID come back in India. d) Again Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori faces health issue in second wave of COVID and could attend the office being a Senior Citizen. In that duration the Faceless appeal hearing was issued and he was not aware. e) Further Mr. Anand, accountant of appellant firm has left the job due to late payment of salary as Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori was under financial crises and therefore, he has not informed about hearing notices to me. f) Due to above facts the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause for non before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. g) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the we submits that the non-filling of submission was In view of above and in the interest of justice, We request your honour to kindly restore the Ground No. 2, 3 and 6 raised before CIT(A) to NAFC for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and equity as the issue are not adiudicated on the Ld. CIT(A). We shall remain grateful for this act of kindness.” Sunil Mohanlal Lahori Wing, Trade World Tower, kamala mills, compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 would like to state as under: a) Originally appeal was filed before the CIT(A)- and case was fixed for hearing in February 2020. That personally appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) -33 Mumbai office at Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai. But due to COVID the hearing was not heard. amily of Mr. Sun Mohan Lahori was staying in UAE. And during COVID lockdown we faces various issue due to tr restriction as being a Senior Citizen. So, on 291 September 2020 he also left for UAK. But unfortunately, on 06th December, 2020 he tested positive for COVID-19 in UAE. So, he was quarantine in UAE for 45 days as per UAE norms. Thereafter he come b India on 03.01.2021. But after that Second Wave of COVID come back in India. d) Again Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori faces health issue in second wave of COVID and could attend the office being a Senior Citizen. In that duration the Faceless appeal hearing was issued and he was not aware. e) Further Mr. Anand, accountant of appellant firm has left the job due to late payment of salary as Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori was under financial crises and therefore, he has not informed about hearing notices to me. ) Due to above facts the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause for non-furnishing the written submission before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. g) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the we submits that the filling of submission was unintentional. In view of above and in the interest of justice, We request your honour to kindly restore the Ground No. 2, 3 and 6 raised before CIT(A) to NAFC for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and equity as the issue are not adiudicated on the Ld. CIT(A). We shall remain grateful for this act of Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 4 ITA No. No. 283/M/2023 Wing, Trade World Tower, kamala mills, compound, Lower 400013 would like to state as under: -33, Mumbai and case was fixed for hearing in February 2020. That time I 33 Mumbai office at Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai. But due to COVID the amily of Mr. Sun Mohan Lahori was staying in UAE. And during COVID lockdown we faces various issue due to travel . So, on 291 September But unfortunately, on 06th December, 2020 he tested 19 in UAE. So, he was quarantine in UAE for 45 days as per UAE norms. Thereafter he come back to India on 03.01.2021. But after that Second Wave of COVID d) Again Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori faces health issue in second wave of COVID and could attend the office being a Senior Citizen. In that duration the Faceless appeal hearing notices e) Further Mr. Anand, accountant of appellant firm has left the job due to late payment of salary as Mr. Sunil Mohan Lahori was under financial crises and therefore, he has not informed ) Due to above facts the assessee was prevented from furnishing the written submission before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. g) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the we submits that the In view of above and in the interest of justice, We request your honour to kindly restore the Ground No. 2, 3 and 6 raised before CIT(A) to NAFC for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and equity as the issue are not adiudicated on merit by the Ld. CIT(A). We shall remain grateful for this act of 4.1 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee was prevented from furnishing the written submission before the Ld. CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and therefore matter might be restored back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not seriously object to the plea of the assessee. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits and only dismissed for default on the part of the assessee.The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has expressed willingness of the assessee for appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) and making submissions before him, appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after considering submission of the grounds of appeal of the statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Sunil Mohanlal Lahori Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee was prevented from furnishing the written submission before the Ld. CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and therefore matter might be restored back to the file of the Ld. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not seriously object to the plea of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits and only dismissed for default assessee.The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has expressed willingness of the assessee for appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) and making submissions before him, therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for ng afresh after considering submission of the grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 5 ITA No. No. 283/M/2023 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee was prevented from furnishing the written submission before the Ld. CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and therefore matter might be restored back to the file of the Ld. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not seriously In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits and only dismissed for default assessee.The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has expressed willingness of the assessee for appearing before the Ld. therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for ng afresh after considering submission of the assessee. The are accordingly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /05/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 11/05/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Sunil Mohanlal Lahori Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sunil Mohanlal Lahori 6 ITA No. No. 283/M/2023 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
Other Referred Cases
CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026