PCL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4619/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves PCL Estates Private Limited appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer under sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the non-receipt of notice by the assessee due to a dysfunctional email, which the assessee argued prevented them from responding to the notices from the Ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal, referencing a decision from the Hon27ble Gujarat High Court, found merit in the assessee's claim of not receiving a fair opportunity to be heard and thus remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783302 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mukeshbhai Babarbhai Desai vs Income Tax Department Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr R/Special Civil Application No.11357 of 2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: J.P. BAIRAGRA; RUPA NANDA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 143(3); 68; 139

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4619/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) PCL Estates Private Limited Plot No.219, Laalasis, 11th Road, Chembur East, Mumbai City, Maharashtra-400 071 PAN: AAACP6943L vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ms. Rupa Nanda Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR.) (Virtually appeared) Date of hearing : 16/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 07/11/2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment year 2014-15, date of order 20/05/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (‘Ld.AO’, hereinafter) passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 11/05/2023. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4619 /Mum/2025 PCL Estates Private Limited 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139 of the Act and as per the information available with the Ld.AO that the assessee purchased 2 properties worth Rs.8.90 crores and declared investment of Rs.9,36,84,453/- under the head ‘current investments’ in the balance-sheet. The assessee received unsecured loans amount to Rs. 4,91,25,000/- from M/s Flavour & Fragrance Ingredients and Rs.3,75,92,033/- from Kukreja Construction Co. The Ld.AO completed the assessment by addition of Rs.8.90 crore u/s 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) issued the notice for hearing, but none of the notices was complied with by the assessee. Finally, the assessment order was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued and filed a submission, where he stated that the Ld.CIT(A) fixed the appeal for hearing on different dates, but the notices were not duly served on the assessee in email. In this respect, the Ld.AR submitted an affidavit duly executed on dated 18/07/2025 by the director of the company, Mrs. Rupa Sunil Kukreja. The relevant part of the said affidavit is reproduced below:- “AFFIDAVIT I. Rupa Sunil Kukreja, wife of Sunil Tolaram Kukreja, solemnly declare and affirm as under: 1) That I am the director of M/s PCL Estates Private Limited. 2) That in the Appeal filed before CIT(A) against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for the AY 2014-15 in the Form No. 35 the office address and the email address were mentioned as under Lanlasis, Plot No. 219, 11th Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400.071. Email: [e-mail] Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4619 /Mum/2025 PCL Estates Private Limited 3) However, we have not received any notice of hearing on our office address. Further the 5 notices sent on email were not received due to email of company was not accessible because renewal payment was not done due to dispute amongst the partners. I state that whatever is stated by me in the foregoing paragraphs is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.” 4. The Ld.AR argued that when the said email of the assessee was dysfunctional, there was no chance of serving the notice on the assessee. He respectfully relied on the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Babarbhai Desai vs Income Tax Department Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr R/Special Civil Application No.11357 of 2023, date of order 26/08/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken the view by observing as below: - “7. On bare perusal of the SOP, it can be interpreted that if the assessee is not granted mandatory requirement of video conference for personal hearing. it would amount to breach of principles of natural. justice. Even if the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice, the department could have written physical communication to the petitioner at the latest address known through speed-post. However, in the instant case, the petitioner had responded and categorically demanded for personal hearing through video conferencing which was not granted by the respondent. Therefore, the authorities have failed to follow the mandatory requirement of the Standard Operating Procedure, and resultantly, the impugned Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023 as well as the notice dated 28.07.2022 would not stand at all. 8. Resultantly, the impugned Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023 as well as the notice dated 28.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Faceless Assessment Authority to comply with the SOP and pass a fresh order after following the due procedure of law. The above exercise should be done within a period of 12 weeks from the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4619 /Mum/2025 PCL Estates Private Limited date of passing the order. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” 5. The Ld.DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of the revenue authorities. 6. In our considered view, the assessee has contended that its registered email address was completely non-functional during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon perusal of the affidavit placed on record, we find merit in the assessee’s submission that the notice was not duly served owing to the inoperative email ID. However, it is equally true that the assessee did not furnish any alternative email address to the revenue authorities for communication purposes. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra), we hold that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are kept open for the assessee to urge before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish a valid and functional email ID before the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure proper service of notices and is further advised to remain diligent and cooperative in the set-aside appellate proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.4619 /Mum/2025 PCL Estates Private Limited 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4619/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th November 2025 Sd/- sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 07/11/2025 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., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. गाड\u0019 फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.4619 /Mum/2025 PCL Estates Private Limited Printed from counselvise.com "