KANAN SANATAN SATYAPRIY,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2478/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was initially delayed by 221 days, which the tribunal condoned after accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. The primary contention in the appeal was the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, related to the difference in stamp duty value and purchase value of a property, amounting to Rs.1,16,21,700, and another addition of Rs.83,00,800 under section 69B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex parte as the assessee did not appear, which was attributed to the reassignment of her case to a new Chartered Accountant and personal distress due to a relative's demise. The tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice, and thus remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653213 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: DARSHIT J NAIK; VIRTUALLY APPEARED
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2478/Mum/2025 (Assessment year : 2018-19) Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy A Wing 1302, Metropolish Building, Near D.N. Nagar Metro Station, Mumbai-400 058 PAN: BMXPS8907E vs Income-tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai Maharastra-400058 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Darshit J Naik, CA (virtually appeared) Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi – Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 18/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/06/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2018-19, date of order 18/06/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 20/04/2021. 2 ITA 2478/Mum/2025 Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy 2. During hearing before the bench, the Ld.AR stated that the appeal is filed with a delay of 221 days and the assessee has filed an affidavit duly executed on 06/06/2025 where the assesse has explained the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. DR has accepted the reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Bench. Accordingly, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time; therefore, we condone the delay of 221 days and adjudicate the matter as below. 3. In the assessment addition was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act related to difference in stamp duty value and purchase value of the property shown by the assessee amount to Rs.1,16,21,700/- which was added back under the head, “Income from other sources” to the total income. Further, the addition of Rws.83,00,800/- was confirmed and was added under section 69B of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, but none was presented before the Ld.CIT(A) during the appeal proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore, decided the appeal exparte upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had completely relied upon her Chartered Accountant, Mr. Kushwat Ojha, whose email ID was registered on the Income Tax Portal. However, Mr. Ojha subsequently relocated to Malaysia and introduced Mr. Nikash Mehta, another Chartered Accountant, to handle the assessee’s income tax matters. Mr. Mehta had assured the assessee that he would pursue the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but he failed to do so. Furthermore, the 3 ITA 2478/Mum/2025 Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy assessee was under considerable mental distress due to the demise of a close relative, which hindered her ability to focus on the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has detailed these facts in a sworn affidavit dated 06/06/2025. 5. The Ld. DR argued but did not raise any substantive objection to the explanation provided by the Ld. AR. 6. Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee had reasonable cause for her non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had bona fide relied on her Chartered Accountant, who neither properly participated in the appellate proceedings nor informed the assessee about the status thereof. Additionally, the assessee was undergoing emotional distress due to the loss of a close relative. The appellate order has been passed ex parte without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby resulting in a denial of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above, we find it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. We make no comment on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice the outcome of the de novo proceedings. It is, however, directed that the assessee be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and be permitted to file any additional documents in support of her case, in accordance with law. At the same time, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate with the appellate proceedings to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal. 4 ITA 2478/Mum/2025 Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy 7. In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No. 2478/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of June 2025. Sd/- sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 19/06/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "