SHREEPAD DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

ITA 1047/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Shreepad Developers, a partnership firm, appealing against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal was initially decided ex parte due to alleged non-compliance with notices, which the firm contested was due to internal disputes among partners affecting communication. The Tribunal found the explanation plausible and restored the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846079 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: TANZIL PADEVEKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 1047/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shreepad Developers 404, Kapadia Chambers JSS Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai - 400002 [PAN: ABTFS8585L] Vs. I.T.O., Ward- 23(3)(6), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tanzil Padevekar, AR Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of the order dated 04/12/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2019-20, on the following grounds:- “1. The assessment order is void and bad-in-law as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued at the very fag end of the assessment i.e. only on 20-03-2024, which is a jurisdictional defect and the same cannot be cured as held by the apex and other High courts on the issue. 2. The assessment order is void and bad in law as the same has been passed without issue of draft assessment order as mandated u/s 144C(1) of the Act. 3. The AO erred in making the addition of Rs.34,80,000/-, being addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The addition made is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 4. In so doing he did not appreciate the material & submissions made before him. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 1047/Mum/2026 5. Your appellant submits that due relief be allowed. 6. The appellant company craves to add to, alter or amend the foregoing grounds, which are without prejudice to one another, at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm and the assessment in the present case was completed making additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) came to be decided ex parte on account of alleged non-compliance with the notices issued. 2.1. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is ex parte in nature and the assessee could not file submissions due to circumstances beyond its control. It was submitted that during the relevant period, disputes had arisen amongst the partners. The notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to certain email IDs which were being operated by the Chartered Accountant representing one of the partners, namely Mr. Uday Parab, with whom the other partners were in dispute. It was further submitted that although the notices were received on the aforesaid email IDs, the same were not communicated to the other partners who were actively contesting the appeal. It was only upon receipt of the appellate order that the matter came to the knowledge of the other partners. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is now in a position to file necessary evidences in support of its case and prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 2.2. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in light of the records placed before us. Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 1047/Mum/2026 3. It is noted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte due to non-compliance with the notices issued. The explanation furnished by the assessee regarding internal disputes amongst the partners and non-communication of notices appears to be plausible. 4. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and file necessary details/evidences as may be called for. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai Dated: 26/03/2026 SC Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 1047/Mum/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "