PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO,NAVI MUMBAI V. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

ITA 2217/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Prasanta Kumar Sahoo against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)/NFAC) dated 24.01.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary grievances included the addition of Rs. 6,43,000 to the assessee's income without a proper hearing, disallowance of business expenses, and denial of deductions under Chapter VI A. The assessee argued that the orders were passed in violation of natural justice, as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to contest the issues due to the pandemic and non-availability of his tax consultant. The ITAT, considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the case back to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714673 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH CHOKSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2217/MUM/2025 (AY: 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo F27/003, Garonda Ghansoli, Sector No. 9, Navi Mumbai – 400701. [PAN: CFYPS9138E] Vs ITO – 28(2)(1), Mumbai Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mukesh Chokshi, CA Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Institution 27.03.2025 Date of hearing 14.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.08.2025 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)/NFACdated 24.01.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by passing the order against the natural justice. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by adding Rs. 6,43,000/- credited in the books of accounts without giving an opportunity of being heard and added 60% of the amount w/s. 115BBE. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by disallowing the expenses 20% of Rs. 4,61,973/- while the expenses were incurred exclusively & necessarily for the purpose of the business. The expenses should be fully allowed. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by disallowing deduction under chapter VI A of Rs. 1,15,180/- The assessee submits that treatment is not justified and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee could not give reply to the notices by the Ld. AO due to non-availability of tax consultant, due to pandemic situation. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2217/Mum/2025 Prasanta Kumar Sahoo 2 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte order. The assessee was not allowed reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the various issues during assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that substantial right of the assessee are involved in the present appeal. Therefore, the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to contest before assessing officer. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future in not making any default before lower authorities in making timely compliance. 3. On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter in not making timely compliance before the lower authorities. The assessee has not disclosed any reason for non-appearance before lower authorities. 4. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessment was completed during sever Covid Pandemic and entire period is covered by such pandemic period. Though, appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A) in 2021, however, notice for hearing of appeal under section 250 was issued only in the month of November/December, 2024 which were inadvertently missed by assessee. Now, he has undertaken on behalf of the assessee in more vigilant in future. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2217/Mum/2025 Prasanta Kumar Sahoo 3 5. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Considering the fact that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order for the want of submission. Keeping in view, the principle of natural justice, the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order, the assessing officer shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance as well as the relevant evidence to substantiate various grounds of appeal. In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 06/08/2025. Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:06/08/2025 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 "