MR. VISHAL SHARMA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER -41(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4098/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Vishal Sharma, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC which confirmed the actions of the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and subsequent additions to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2011-12. The AO had made these additions based on unexplained cash credits and accommodation entries. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing and also on substantive grounds as the assessee failed to provide necessary explanations or evidence to counter the AO's findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786795 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 148; 144; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4098/MUM/2025 (AY: 2011-12) (Physical hearing) Mr. Vishal Sharma 301, 3rd floor, Stanford Plaza, Opp. Citi Mall Nr. Oberoi Spring, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053. [PAN: BEKPS7691E] Vs ITO, 41(3)(4), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR Date of Institution 12.06.2025 Date of hearing 17.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 27.04.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “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 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 confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. 10,36,940/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,97,490/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4098/Mum/2025 Vishal Sharma 2 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the commission income u/s 69C of Rs. 24,450/- 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Rs. 8,15,000/-.” 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice through e- mail as well as RPAD on more than three occasions. One, R.L. Rathi appeared on 30.07.2025 and thereafter none appeared on behalf of assessee. Today, neither anybody attended on behalf of assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed, therefore, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the submission of ld. Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that impugned order was passed ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2023 and it was communicated to the assessee on the day itself, as mentioned on Form 36 of appeal form. This appeal is filed in June, 2025. The assessee has not explained the delay properly except taking a lame excuse that his Advocate was suffering from viral fever. No supporting evidence in the form of Medical Certificate or medical prescription is filed on record. The delay in filing appeal is more than 700 days and may not be condoned. The assessee has a habitual defaulter in not attending the proceeding before tax authorities. The assessment was completed under section 144 and again before ld. CIT(A), no submission was filed. The assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4098/Mum/2025 Vishal Sharma 3 3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and also perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 17.04.2023 and the present appeal is filed only on 22.06.2025. Thus, there is delay of 713 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed his own affidavit, inter-alia contending that he handed over order of ld. CIT(A) to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate. On handing over impugned order to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate suffered a viral fever. The affidavit is not supported by any medical prescription or certificate. In a ordinary course a patient of viral fever recovered within a week or so. Surprisingly, there is delay of two years, which has not been explained properly. In our view, the assessee is casual in explaining the delay. Thus, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed as unadmitted. 4. Even on merit, we find that assessing officer made addition on account of credit entry in the bank account, which was not explained despite allowing sufficient opportunity. The assessing officer passed ex-parte order by holding that credit entry is a result of accommodation entry received from Maheshwari KN. The assessing officer also added 3% of credit entry of Rs. 8,15,000/- i.e. Rs. 24,450/- on account of unexplained expenditure. The action of assessing officer was upheld by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) before upholding the action of assessing officer clearly recorded that assessee failed to substantiate the various grounds of appeal. Before us, neither any written submission or any documentary evidence is filed to explain the nature and source of credit entry in the bank. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4098/Mum/2025 Vishal Sharma 4 of lower authorities on merit. Thus, the appeal is also dismissed on merit. In the result, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 17/11/2025 at the time of hearing. Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 17/11/2025 Biswajit 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 Printed from counselvise.com "