M/S. NANSHI EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER -15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4099/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Nanshi Export Private Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary grievances included the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the passing of an order under sections 144 r.w.s. 147, and the determination of income and undisclosed purchases under section 69C. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representation despite multiple notices and hearings, leading to an ex parte decision based on the Departmental Representative's submissions. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, necessitating a fresh examination of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831024 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 144; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4099/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nanshi Export Private Limited 301, 3rd floor Stanford Plaza opp. Citi mall Nr. Oberoi spring new link road, Andheri West, Maharashtra Vs. Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020 PAN NO. AADCN 0694 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Beena Santosh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/01/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre- Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.CIT’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the Printed from counselvise.com action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirmin action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. 54,58,92,371/- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirm of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Undisclosed Purchases u/s 69C of Rs. 54,31,76,489/ 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the acti of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Commission of Rs. 27,15,882/ Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this appeal.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the records, it is further evident that on earlier occasions as well, the ass to respond to the notices of hearing issued for 12.08.2025 and 06.10.2025. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard hearing the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative. action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirmin action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. -as against the returned income of Rs. 1,04,667/ 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirm of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Undisclosed Purchases u/s 69C of Rs. 54,31,76,489/-. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the acti of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Commission of Rs. 27,15,882/-. Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the records, it is further evident that on earlier occasions as well, the ass to respond to the notices of hearing issued for 12.08.2025 and 06.10.2025. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the as hearing the submissions of the learned Departmental M/s. Nanshi Export Private Limited 2 ITA No. 4099/MUM/2025 action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. as against the returned income of Rs. 1,04,667/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Undisclosed 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Commission Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the records, it is further evident that on earlier occasions as well, the assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing issued for 12.08.2025 and 06.10.2025. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. qua the assessee after hearing the submissions of the learned Departmental Printed from counselvise.com 3. From the record, it is noticed that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an director. In the affidavit, it has been stated that after receipt of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income matter was entrusted to the assessee’s consultant for further necessary action. However, during consultant was suffering from acute viral fever and upper respiratory tract infection, for which he was advised complete bed rest by the doctor. Owing to his illness, he had proceeded to his native place in Rajasthan and, during th the appeal within the prescribed time or even intimate the assessee about the delay. It has been further affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control affidavit is reproduced “3. We are in receipt of the CIT (A) order. After receiving the order, the same has been handed over to our consultant Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (Advocate), for further action. But period he was suffering from acute viral fever and URTI (Acute upper respiratory tract infections), so the doctor has advised him to take complete bed rest. Since his family is in his native place, he went to his native place in was unable to file the appeal in time nor in a position to inform us about the same 4. Since the date of the order is 08.08.2024, the respective appeal should have been filed on or before 07.10.2024. Hence delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The delay was not intentional, and it was for a Bonafede reason. From the record, it is noticed that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit sworn by its director. In the affidavit, it has been stated that after receipt of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the matter was entrusted to the assessee’s consultant for further necessary action. However, during the relevant period, the consultant was suffering from acute viral fever and upper respiratory tract infection, for which he was advised complete bed rest by the doctor. Owing to his illness, he had proceeded to his native place in Rajasthan and, during that period, was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time or even intimate the assessee about the delay. It has been further affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Relevant reproduced as under: 3. We are in receipt of the CIT (A) order. After receiving the order, the same has been handed over to our consultant Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (Advocate), for further action. But unfortunately, during that period he was suffering from acute viral fever and URTI (Acute upper respiratory tract infections), so the doctor has advised him to take complete bed rest. Since his family is in his native place, he went to his native place in Rajasthan. Unfortunately, during that period, he was unable to file the appeal in time nor in a position to inform us about the same. Since the date of the order is 08.08.2024, the respective appeal should have been filed on or before 07.10.2024. Hence delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The delay was not intentional, and it was for a Bonafede reason.” M/s. Nanshi Export Private Limited 3 ITA No. 4099/MUM/2025 From the record, it is noticed that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application affidavit sworn by its director. In the affidavit, it has been stated that after receipt of the tax (Appeals), the matter was entrusted to the assessee’s consultant for further the relevant period, the consultant was suffering from acute viral fever and upper respiratory tract infection, for which he was advised complete bed rest by the doctor. Owing to his illness, he had proceeded to his at period, was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time or even intimate the assessee about the delay. It has been further affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide Relevant part of 3. We are in receipt of the CIT (A) order. After receiving the order, the same has been handed over to our consultant Mr. Bhanu Pratap unfortunately, during that period he was suffering from acute viral fever and URTI (Acute upper respiratory tract infections), so the doctor has advised him to take complete bed rest. Since his family is in his native place, he went to Unfortunately, during that period, he was unable to file the appeal in time nor in a position to inform us Since the date of the order is 08.08.2024, the respective appeal should have been filed on or before 07.10.2024. Hence there is a delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The delay was not Printed from counselvise.com 4. It is an undisputed position that the explanation for delay has been duly supported by an affidavit and no counter been filed by the Revenue to controvert the facts stated therein. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudi merits. 5. Having considered submission of the Ld. perusal of the record, Income-tax (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal without duly considering the submissions and evidences of the a assessee has raised grievances against various additions made by the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, we one more opportunity to the assessee to place on record the necessary documents and evidences in support of its claims. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the m file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is an undisputed position that the explanation for delay has been duly supported by an affidavit and no counter filed by the Revenue to controvert the facts stated therein. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudi Having considered submission of the Ld. DR perusal of the record, , we find that the learned Commissioner of tax (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal without duly considering the submissions and evidences of the a assessee has raised grievances against various additions made by the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to place on record the necessary documents and evidences in support of its claims. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of tax (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. M/s. Nanshi Export Private Limited 4 ITA No. 4099/MUM/2025 It is an undisputed position that the explanation for delay has been duly supported by an affidavit and no counter-affidavit has filed by the Revenue to controvert the facts stated therein. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on DR op merits and , we find that the learned Commissioner of tax (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal without duly considering the submissions and evidences of the assessee. The assessee has raised grievances against various additions made by the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to place on record the necessary documents and evidences in support of its claims. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of atter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing Printed from counselvise.com 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/01/2026 Disha Raut, Stenographer Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/01/2026 Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s. Nanshi Export Private Limited 5 ITA No. 4099/MUM/2025 appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 1/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "