SHRI. SANJAV KESHAV SATPUTE ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6437/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sanjay Keshav Satpute, the Appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which affirmed an addition of Rs.48,14,500 under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The initial appeal was decided ex-parte due to non-compliance by the Assessee, who failed to respond adequately despite multiple opportunities. The Assessee argued that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to non-receipt and thus non-prosecution. The Tribunal, acknowledging the communication error, remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473514 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. LAXMI KANTH; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: VINITA SHAH; LD
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6437/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sanjay Keshav Satpute, 112/2 Sundar Nagar Hsg Soc Ltd., Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028 PAN: BAOPS1527H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(6), Piramal Chamber, Dr SS Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.11.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. ITA No.6437/M/2024 Shri Sanjay Keshav Satpute 2 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer { in short ‘AO”} vide assessment order dated 16.03.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act made the addition of Rs.48,14,500/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act, against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The Assessee in spite of affording five opportunities, except seeking adjournment on dated 26.06.2024, eventually made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee by passing the impugned order as ex-parte and affirmed the aforesaid addition. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the impugned order before this Court and in support of its case, has submitted that window for communication by the NFAC was enabled on 09.11.2022 as well as on 20.06.2024 and the Assessee on 26.06.2024 responded to and sought for adjournment. However, thereafter the Ld. Commissioner without enabling the window for communication issued three notices and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on non-prosecution. The Assessee further submitted that somehow it could not receive the notices as mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner as the notices were sent to the email i.e. [e-mail] instead of mailing to email i.e. [e-mail] as mentioned in Form No.35 and ITA No.6437/M/2024 Shri Sanjay Keshav Satpute 3 therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside and/or the case may be remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, so that the Assessee could get proper opportunity of being heard. 4. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. though supported the impugned order, however could not refute the aforesaid factual aspects. 5. Having considered the contentions raised by the Assessee as genuine and un-intentional, we, for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, are inclined to set aside the impugned order and to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. 5.1 The Assessee is also directed to communicate and update correct e-mail, postal address and telephone number to the Revenue Department and First Appellate Authority. ITA No.6437/M/2024 Shri Sanjay Keshav Satpute 4 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "