SAROJ BHONSLE NAIK, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA V. WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI/, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 4396/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Saroj Bhonsle Naik, the appellant, who contested the ex parte assessment order passed by the A.O. for the assessment year 2014-15. The A.O. had made substantial additions to the assessee's income based on alleged undisclosed investments and income, which were not responded to due to the assessee's non-compliance and lack of representation. The Tribunal recognized the assessee's difficulties in complying with procedural requirements due to her age and unfamiliarity with online procedures, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831685 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAWPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: YASH BHADOLA; FILING AN APPEAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4396/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Saroj Bhonsle Naik 1303, Purna Building 1, Worli Sagar 50, Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Vs. ITO, Ward-22(3)(6) Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN/GIR No. ABIPB 9956 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Yash Bhadola Respondent by : Shri Sawpnil Choudhari – Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 21.03.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2014-15. The basic grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of her appeal by the first appellate authority without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a resident individual. As per the allegation of the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short), for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. However, information available in the system of the department revealed that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had undertaken substantial financial transactions. Based on such information, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4396/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Saroj Bhonsle Naik vs. ITO the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. As alleged by the A.O., the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act. Since, the assessee remained non-responsive, the A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte to the best of his judgement, invoking the provision of section 144 of the Act. While doing so, he made the following additions: a) Unexplained investment in immovable property of Rs.1,25,16,500/- b) Investment made out of undisclosed sources of Rs.4,83,41,565/- c) Investments made in time deposits out of undisclosed income of Rs.5,65,00,000/- d) Undisclosed rental income of Rs.10,44,610/- e) Undisclosed income from sale of motor vehicles Rs.18,90,919/- f) Cash deposits in bank account of Rs.79,15,000/- 3. The aforesaid additions resulted in determination of total income at Rs.12,82,13,854/-. 4. The additions made by the A.O. were contested by the assessee by filing an appeal before the first appellate authority. However, due to non-compliance before the first appellate authority, the appeal was disposed of ex parte sustaining the additions. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is an old lady and not familiar with the online procedure. Thus, he submitted, due to lack of proper support, the assessee could not make necessary compliance before the A.O. and first appellate authority. He submitted, given an opportunity, the assessee will explain the facts and source of the investment/deposits before the A.O. with supporting evidence. Thus, he prayed, for restoration of the issues to the A.O. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4396/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Saroj Bhonsle Naik vs. ITO 6. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR) relied upon the observations of the departmental authorities. 7. Having examined the factual matrix, we find that the assessee went unrepresented both before the A.O. and first appellate authority. Thus, the additions made by the A.O. and sustained by the first appellate authority were purely due to lack of supporting evidences. As can be seen from the facts on record, substantial additions have been made on account of investments made in immovable properties and bank deposits. Thus, the assessee is required to explain the source of such investments through documentary evidences. Due to non-appearance before the departmental authorities, the source could not be explained. Considering the fact that the additions made are quite substantial and reason for such additions being lack of evidence and keeping in view the hardship that the assessee might be undergoing due to such huge addition and the consequential demand, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of investment in immovable properties/bank investments. The assessee also deserves an opportunity to explain the factual position relating to the other additions made by the A.O., including the cash deposits in the bank account. For enabling the assessee to do so, we set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore all the issues to the A.O. for de novo adjudication, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to respond to the queries made by A.O. and co-operate in finalizing the proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4396/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Saroj Bhonsle Naik vs. ITO 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Jagadish) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 23.01.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "