SANGEETABEN BHARATKUMAR MEHTA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4668/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sangeeta Bharatkumar Mehta against the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2020-21. The primary issues revolved around procedural lapses in notice issuance, high-pitched assessments, and substantial additions made under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested the validity of notices and the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, alongside challenging the merits of the additions made to her income. The tribunal noted procedural irregularities in the notice issuance process, particularly that notices were sent to an outdated email address, leading to an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775317 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK PERAMPURA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNAMIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4668/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sangeeta Bharatkumar Mehta, 2nd Floor, 78-80 Gora Gandhi Building, C.P, Tank Road, Mumbai-400004. [PAN :AFTPM1095 B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR Respondent by: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal: 01. That the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts while dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation, and therefore the order passed by NFAC required to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4668/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 2 02. That the appellant has categorically given E-mail ID in Form No. 35 [e-mail] for issue of notices, however the notices issued on E-mail ID [e-mail] and passed an ex- parte order is against the facts on record and therefore the order passed by NFAC is required to be quashed. 03. The assessment framed by the A.O. is high pitch assessment and the appeal of the appellant dismissed on the grounds of limitation in two notices is against the principal of natural justice and therefore the order passed by the NFAC is require to be set aside. 04. That the Ld. assessing officer has made heavy addition of Rs. 11,93,00,779/- without appreciating the facts and without making proper inquiry which is again uphold by the NFAC is against the principal of natural justice and required to be deleted. 05. That the Notice issued u/s 148 dated 28/03/2024 by ITO, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai (JAO) is without jurisdiction and invalid and therefore the whole proceedings are bad in law, illegal and void. 06. That the Notice U/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is never served on the appellant and therefore subsequent proceedings are bad in law and require to be quashed. 07. That the reasons recorded U/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 are vague and only a fishing activity, therefore the proceedings initiated itself is bad in law, illegal. 08. That the Ld. FAO has disallowed the claim of Index cost acquisition of Rs.6,83,279/-on sale of property, without appreciating the facts available on record and therefore considering the facts of the case it may please be allowed. 09. That the Ld. FAO has made addition huge addition of Rs. 11,82,67,500/- on account of unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts available on record and without making further inquiry is bad in law and requires to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4668/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 3 10. That the appellant has purchase property with co-owners which facts are available on record, however without appreciating the facts total cost added in the hands of appellant for Rs. 11,82,67,500/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the provision of law and principal of natural justice, which requires to be deleted. 11. That the Ld. FAO has disallowed the claim of housing loan Interest of Rs. 2,00,000/- is against the facts on record and therefore it requires to be deleted. 12. That the appellant has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- under chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however the FAO has without making proper inquiry Ex-parte order passed is against the provision of natural justice and therefore the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- may please be allowed. 13. That the appellant has neither given incorrect information nor given inaccurate particulars of Income and as such the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAC, u/s 270A w.r.t 270A(8) and 272A(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 requires to be dropped. 14. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D requires to be deleted. 15. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, deleted or alter any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided. 3. The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, house property and other sources. For the assessment year, the assessee filed return of income at Rs.30,85,680/- on 15.02.2021. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee entered into sale and purchase transaction of immovable property and upon receiving this information, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2024 with prior approval of the appropriate Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4668/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 4 authorities. In response to the said notice, the assessee did not file any return of income. Notices u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 along with questionnaire were issued to the assesse, but the same was also not responded. The Assessing Officer, therefore, passed order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,82,67,500/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act relating to the property i.e. Genext Hardware & Parks Private Limited. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,50,000/- which was claimed as deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), but the notices of hearing were issued on the email Id of the earlier CA of the assessee who expired at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were also ex-parte. However, at the stage of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee has categorically mentioned email Id in Form No.35 i.e [e-mail] (email ID of the husband) for issuance of notice. But the notices were issued on email Id i.e. [e-mail] and therefore said notices were not received in time by the assessee and the order of the CIT(A) was also passed ex- parte. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation and that also by giving only two Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4668/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 5 notices which amount to violation of Principal of Natural Justice. The Ld.AR submitted that the assesse is filing paper book which was not filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The assesse has good case on merit. Therefore, the Ld.AR requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) had issued notice of hearing to the email address of the earlier CA who passed away on 12.01.2025 i.e. before filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee in the Form No.35 has categorically mentioned the email Id of the husband of the assessee on which the CIT(A) has not issued any notice. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit after taking cognizance of the evidences/documents filed before us and passed the order on merit as per the Income Tax Statue. Needless to say, the assesse be given opportunity of hearing by following the Principle of Natural Justice. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4668/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 6 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 12.09.2025 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, मुंबई 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. (True Copy) आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, मुंबई Printed from counselvise.com "