PELLUCID SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4372/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which had confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained investments and cash credits under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The AO had initially reopened the case based on information suggesting client code modifications and issued several notices, to which the Assessee allegedly did not respond. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessee had indeed submitted relevant documents and responses, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778772 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV BHAGAT; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNMIYA; LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 68; 69; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4372/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited, 301, Turf View, 63, Dadarkar Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400034 PAN: AAFCP1405L Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, (NFAC) National Faceless Appeal Centre – ITO Ward 7(3)(1), AB-126J, Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 183 days in filing this appeal, as pointed out by the Registry, on which the Assessee has claimed that due to non-receipt of the impugned order on its email registered as well as in physical form, the delay has been occurred, which was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reason. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4372/M/2025 M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited 2 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR. refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay. 4. Considering the delay and reasons stated by the Assessee with duly sworn affidavit, though appears to be non- convincing and therefore is not condonable, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment order dt.25.03.2022 has made the addition of Rs.7,30,700/-. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that on the basis of information received by the AO to the effect that the Assessee had indulged in client code modification on the NSEL amounting to Rs.7,30,700/- which needs verification, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by recording the reasons for reopening and issuing the notice dated 25.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee. The Assessee neither filed any adjournment nor submitted any reply. Therefore, the AO vide assessment order dated 25.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 & 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,30,700/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.31,00,000/- unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.76,614/- being commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities eventually made no compliance and/or filed no evidence/documents to substantiate its claim. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by way of impugned order as ex-parte and consequently affirmed the aforesaid additions. 7. This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4372/M/2025 M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited 3 parties and the material available on record. The Assessee, from the page nos.61-62 of the paper book, has demonstrated the fact that in response to the notice dated 02.02.2022 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, had filed its submissions on dated 05.02.2022 with various documents such as covering letter, ITR acknowledgment, STI, tax audit and audit financials, bank details and bank statements, CCM contract, business premise details, cash book copy, scrutiny assessment orders for the last three years, Kushal Holding ledger contract notes, unsecured loan details and confirmation and salary details. The Assessee also demonstrated from page No.65 – 66 which is acknowledgment dated 05.02.2022 the date of submission against the notice issued dated 02.02.2022 u/s 142(1) of the Act whereby the Assessee also filed the details of loans, advances and deposits with ledgers, covering reply letter dated 05.03.2022, bank account transaction with narration, D mat statement, mutual fund statement, global report FNO, salary paid voucher, details of rent paid and confirmation and donation receipt which goes to show contrary to the findings of the AO in the assessment order in mentioning that the Assessee filed no reply. Therefore, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. This Court also clarifies that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4372/M/2025 M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited 4 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "