SHANTI SATYADEV MISHRA,SANTACRUZ VAKOLA V. ASSESSING OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER PAREL

ITA 4574/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shanti Satyadev Mishra against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner (Appeals), which confirmed an addition of \\u20b916,82,000 to the assessee's income, representing the difference between the purchase value of a property and its guideline value. The assessee contested the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, claiming it was issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer without proper application of mind and that the property was purchased in an earlier year, thus not liable for addition in the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not provided a fair opportunity of hearing and restored the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775607 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP JUMALE
• Assessee Lawyers: PAVAN VED VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4574/MUM/2025 (AY: 2017-18) (Physical hearing) Shanti Satyadev Mishra C-603 Building No. 3, Khandwala SRA SCY, Dattamandir Road, Vakola B Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055. [PAN: AREPM0794J] Vs ITO - 22(3)(1), Mumbai Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pavan Ved (virtually) Revenue by Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. CIT Date of Institution 17.07.2025 Date of hearing 11.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 11.09.2025 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre /Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17th December 2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: (1) Assessment is void ab initio as notice under section 148 is invalid for reasons that notice was issued by jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) registered document itself says that property was purchased in earlier years hence there cannot be addition in this assessment year, non-application of mind by approving authority and others regions etc. (2) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of ₹16,82,000/-being the difference in purchase value of property and guideline value of property. The purchase value taken by assessing officer is incorrect. The assessment year taken by him is also incorrect. (3) Both the assessment and appeal were decided without giving proper opportunity of hearing and without proper service of notices. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4574/Mum/2025 Shanti Satyadev Mishra 2 (4) The appellant reserves right to add amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal as above.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 139 days delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. In fact, the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not served upon the assessee. The assessee came to know about passing of impugned order only when recovery notice was received in December 2024. On receipt of recovery notice, the assessee immediately filed present appeal. Though from the date of knowledge of order there is no delay. Still to avoid objection, the assessee is seeking indulgence of this Tribunal for condoning the delay, which is not intentional or deliberate. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if the assessee is given opportunity to contest the appeal on merit. 3. On merit of the appeal, the learned AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer (AO) as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed the ex-parte order without allowing fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld. AO made addition on account of difference of sale consideration declared by assessee vis a vis the value determined by stump valuation authority (SVA). The assessee has purchased the property in earlier assessment year and not in the year under consideration. The assessing officer has not considered the information properly and made the addition in the year under consideration. No addition is liable to be made in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4574/Mum/2025 Shanti Satyadev Mishra 3 the year under consideration. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of AO without independent appreciation of facts. The learned AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee, to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance, if matter is restored back to assessing officer for passing the assessment order afresh. 4. On the other hand, the learned senior departmental representative (Sr DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The lower authorities have given ample opportunity to the assessee. It is the assessee who has not avail such opportunity. The assessing officer correctly made the addition on the basis of deeming provision in absence of any explanation offered by assessee despite allowing sufficient opportunity. The assessing officer has having information about the purchase of property which is registered in the financial year under consideration. The assessee does not deserve further opportunity without disclosing any reasonable and sufficient cause as to why the assessee has not participated in the assessment proceeding nor filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. 5. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I’m considering the plea of condonation of delay. The foremost plea of learned AR of the assessee is that impugned order was not received by assessee and that the assessee came to know about impugned order when recovery proceeding was initiated against the assessee. Considering the fact that such facts are Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4574/Mum/2025 Shanti Satyadev Mishra 4 not controverted by revenue, furthermore, the assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly, and rather there is chance that the plea of assessee in condoning the delay may not be accepted by appellate authority. Thus, considering the principle of law on limitation that when technical considerations and a cause of substantial justice are kept against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Hence, keeping such principle the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merits of the case. 6. I find that lower authorities have passed ex parte order in making addition on account of difference of sale consideration declared by the assessee vis a vis the value of asset determined by stump valuation authority. The additions were made in absence of submission by assessee. Now, before me the learned AR of the assessee undertook on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance, therefore, keeping in view principle of natural justice that the assessee was deprived from opportunity of hearing, therefore the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the 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 and not to make further delay and to furnish all the relevant information and evidence in his power and position. In the result, ground No. 2 & 3 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4574/Mum/2025 Shanti Satyadev Mishra 5 7. At the time of submission, when the learned AR of the assessee raised objection about issuance of notice by jurisdictional assessing officer, he was appraised the fact that such issue is pending before honourable Supreme Court in the appeal filed by revenue, on confronting such fact, the learned AR of the assessee agreed for not to press such ground at this stage. Thus, ground No1 of the appeal is treated as not pressed and dismissed as such. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing on 11/09/2025. Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 11/09/2025 Dragon (self) 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 "