MAHESH NARSING CHOUDHARY,NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 4769/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mahesh Narsing Choudhary against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal against the Assessment Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The primary issues in the appeal included the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act and the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A of the Act. The Assessee contended that the reopening was without jurisdiction, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice, while the Department argued that sufficient opportunity was provided to the Assessee to make representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782242 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4769/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2019-2020) Mahesh Narsing Choudhary Shop No.6, Plot No.F-72, Vighnahar Complex, Sector -12, Khargar, Navi Mumbai – 410210. Maharashtra. [PAN:AFFPC5776B] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400703. Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Khushiram Jadhwani Shri Paresh Deshpande Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 13.10.2025 29.10.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 04/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 16/01/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “I. VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT GROUND NO 1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4769/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 2 reopening the assessment for the captioned assessment year which is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, void ab-initio and violating the principle of natural justice. 1.1 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment for the captioned assessment year without complying with the provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. 1.2 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under section 148 without complying the provisions of section 148A vis a vis order required under section 148A(d) and without affording sufficient opportunity to the Appellant of appreciating the issues and representing his case. 1.3 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without affording the Appellant, sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Assessment proceedings are vitiated as there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and the due process of law has not been followed. 1.4 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer has simply relied upon the alleged Report of the Investigation Wing of the Department for invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has not applied his independent mind to the facts available on record nor has reached any independent reasonable belief as to escapement of income. 1.5 The appellant contends that notice dated: 31.03.2023 issued by learned Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai (JAO) is wholly without jurisdiction as the same can only be issued by National Faceless Assessment Unit (FAO) 1.6 The appellant contends that the in view of the above, the reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in law and hence the assessment is null and void and be set aside or struck down. ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AT RS. 10,00,000/- 2.1. GROUND NO 2 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act alleging the same as fictious loan received by the Appellant from one ARC Group. 2.1. The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as alleged Unexplained Money under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4769/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 3 2.2. The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000 being Unsecured Loan was duly disclosed in the Return of Income and also during the Assessment Proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of Act. Thus, addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted and unjustified. 2.3. The appellant contends that the Assessment has been completed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Assessing Officer has simply relied upon alleged Report of the Investigation Wing of the Department without affording sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to verify and rebut the same. 2.4. The appellant contends that the it is submitted that there was no proper response furnished by the consultant of the Appellant dealing with the above matter. This has led to unwarranted adverse assessment. 2.5. The Appellant thus contends that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 on assessment may kindly be deleted as the same is unjustified and unwarranted. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that notice for hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) sent on the email address were missed by the Assessee and therefore, proper representation could not be made before the Ld. CIT(A). In addition the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee made brief factual and legal submissions on merits. 4. In response, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Assessee to make representation before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Assessee failed to avail the benefit of the same. It was further submitted that the submissions advanced on merits were being on behalf of the Assessee for the first time before this Tribunal as the same were neither raised nor considered of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. We find that last 4 notice of hearing were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) over a period of three months. It was submitted that the Assessee could not make proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4769/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 4 since the aforesaid notice received over email were inadvertently missed by the Assessee. At the same time, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the factual/legal submissions on merits made by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee were effectively being made for the first time before this Tribunal since no effective representation was made before the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A). Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 04/06/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Since we have restored the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee would be at liberty to place relevant facts along with supporting documents before the CIT(A). The Assessee would also have liberty to raise all rights and contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would be admit/adjudicate the same as per law. It is clarified that we have not returned any findings of merits. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No. 2.3 raised by the Assessee it treated as allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that we have set aside the impugned order and restored the issues back to the file of the Learned CIT(A). 6. In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 29.10.2025 Milan, LDC Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4769/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध ,आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "