PRAMOD LAXMAN BHOR,NAVI MUMBAI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(2)(4), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 2943/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pramod Laxman Bhor against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially filed with a significant delay of 453 days, which the Tribunal condoned after accepting the assessee's explanation of unintentional non-compliance due to lack of knowledge and issues with his tax consultant. The primary issues in the appeal included the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appeal orders, the scope of the assessment which was beyond 'limited scrutiny' intended for verifying cash deposits, and the estimation of business income by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found the assessee's non-compliance and delay in pursuing the matter unsatisfactory but decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712201 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG GUDHTE; VITUALLY
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OM PRAKSH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2943/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Pramod Laxman Bhor Plot No.224, 1st Floor, Room 102, Sector-14, New Kukshet gav, Nerul West, Navi Mumbai-400 0765 PAN : AKBPA1278K vs The Income-tax Officer, Ward 28(2)(4), Room No.309, 3rd Floor Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhte, CA (vitually Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe – (SR. DR.) Date of hearing : 25/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2025 O R D E R PER : SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assesse is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 22/11/2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the very outset we noticed that there was a delay of 453 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assesse filed a petition seeking condonation of Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 2943/Mum/2025 Pramod Laxan Bhor delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which is supported by a detailed affidavit, which states as under:- “1, Pramod Laxman Bhor, resident of Plot no 224, 1st floor, room-102, Sector-14, New kukshet gav, Nerul west, Navi Mumbai -400706. Do solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am an individual. 2. That I am not well versed with the Tax Provisions and e-assessment proceedings. 3. That in my case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has passed Appeal Order on 22th Nov 2023 Ex-party. 4. That due to my lack of knowledge of tax procedures, I had approached a tax consultant for assistance. However, he failed to respond and guide me properly, which resulted in non- submission of my reply. The non-compliance was unintentional. 5. That my previous tax consultant never reverted to my follow-ups or communicated any updates regarding the case. 6. That I first became aware of the proceedings only when my bank account was unexpectedly frozen by the Income Tax Department. Until that point, I had no knowledge of Assessment Proceedings. 7. That I later came to know that several communications, including notices, the Assessment Order had been sent to an outdated email address and mobile number which were no longer active or accessible at the relevant time. As a result, I did not receive any alerts or official intimation regarding the Assessment Proceeding. I have attached the Screen shot of previous mail Id registered on Income Tax Portal for your kind reference. 8. Subsequently despite various follow-ups, response was not received from consultant. Hence subsequently I approached another consultant and file appeal. 9. That there is a delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. 10. That the appeal is filed on a meritorious matter and deserves to be addressed on the grounds of merits. Non allowance of the appeal would cause unnecessary hardship to the Appellant when actually the remedy is available in the law itself. 11. That the Appeal is filed on legal grounds. 12. That there is no mala fide intention in late filing the Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 2943/Mum/2025 Pramod Laxan Bhor In the light of above, the Appellant seeks your honor's mercy to condone the delay and grant the appeal as the delay was not intentional. Sd/- Pramod Laxman Bhor Deponent Verification I, Pramod Laxman Bhor, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 12 are true to my personal knowledge; and nothing material has been concealed and no part of it is false. Signed & verified at Pune, this 3rd day of April, 2025 Sd/- (Pramod Laxman Bhor) Deponent” 3. From the perusal of the affidavit, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the time limit. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, but with a cost of Rs.5,000/-, and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee are the following:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessee request for opportunity to represent case before Assessing Officer/ CIT(A) as Assessment Order and Appeal Order is passed Ex-parte. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessment is \"Limited Scrutiny\" for the purpose of verification of cash deposit during the year. However assessment is concluded on estimated business income. Apparently Ld, AO has travelled beyond the scope of Assessment. Hence, Assessment Order is bad in law and needs to be quashed and asset aside. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in estimating assessed income @10% of credits in Bank Account. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA 2943/Mum/2025 Pramod Laxan Bhor 4. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. We find that the assessment order and appeal order by the Ld.CIT(A) are passed exparte. Even before the Tribunal also the assessee filed the appeal belatedly by 453 days, which has been condoned by us. However, we observe that the behavior of the assessee is not worthy of acceptance inasmuch as that before the lower authorities the assessee did not comply with the notice and even before the Tribunal the appeal was filed belatedly by 453 days. All these show that the assessee was not diligent enough to pursue its income-tax matter. Therefore, we levied a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee. 6. Further, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal exparte. Therefore, in our view, it would be appropriate to restore the matter before him to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assesse and on production of proof of payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- levied by us. The assessee may be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 day of July, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 24/07/2025 Pavanan Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA 2943/Mum/2025 Pramod Laxan Bhor 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., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "