SKAN BPO PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD 11(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8638/MUM/2025

AI Insights

M/s. Skan BPO Private Limited appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. CIT(A)), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal was initially time-barred by 15 days, but the tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay. The main issues in the appeal included the legality of notices and orders issued in the name of a non-existing entity, the inability of the appellant to respond to various notices due to financial losses and business closure, and the challenge against the estimation of income at 100 percent of gross commission receipts without rational basis. The tribunal noted the habitual non-compliance of the assessee but decided to give another opportunity for the assessee to present its case before the Ld. AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840189 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Companies Act, 2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SHETH
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.8638/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s. Skan BPO Private Limited, C/o Sabir Khan, 402, Apeksha CHSL, Plot 201, Sher-e-Punjab Colony, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093 Vs. ITO, Ward 11(2)(1), 425, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai -400020. PAN: AAUCS3003N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Sheth, AR Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20. 2. This appeal is time barred by 15 days, for which the assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay along with an affidavit. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay as there being ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay in filing the present appeal beyond the period of limitation. Delay is hereby condoned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8638/Mum/2025 M/s. Skan BPO Private Limited 2 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ground 1 The appellant company’s name was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai in terms of section 248 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013 vide notice of Striking Off and Dissolution (STK 7) dated 12th September 2018 i.e. prior to the issue of notice u/s. 148A (b) dated 22nd February 2023. Your appellant respectfully submits that the issue of notice u/s. 148A (b), order u/s. 148A (d), notice u/s. 148 and the impugned order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 are bad in law and hence unsustainable since these notices and orders were issued in the name of non existing entity. 2. Ground 2 The appellant could not respond to various notices received for the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons beyond its control. Further, the appellant could not furnish documents and explanation before the Id. CIT(A) and Id. AO due to financial losses and closure of its business. Your appellant respectfully submits that the present assessment may please be set aside and referred back to the ld. AO, especially in view of the fact that the order of assessment was passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the IT Act. 3. Ground 3 The Id. CIT(A) has sustained the estimation of income at the rate of 100 percent of gross commission receipts, without appreciating that AOs estimation has no rational basis and without appreciating that deduction needs to be granted for expenses incurred for earning the commission receipts. Without prejudice to the other grounds, your appellant respectfully submits that the net income from commission can be estimated on the basis of some comparable case and only to the extent of a small fraction of the gross commission receipts.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has not filed its return of income for the year under consideration and the assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act for the reason that the assessee has received commission/brokerage amounting to Rs.1,31,83,224/- and had received interest amounting to Rs.43,128/- during the year under consideration. The assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment proceeding and the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’ for short) passed the assessment order dated 17.01.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act being best judgment assessment, thereby determining the total income at Rs.1,32,26,352/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 22.09.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-compliance. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8638/Mum/2025 M/s. Skan BPO Private Limited 3 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant during the assessment proceeding as well as before the first appellate authority. 8. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee company has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai as per section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 vide notice of Striking Off Dissolution (STK 7) dated 12.09.2018. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for its non-compliance before the lower authorities and prayed that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to substantiate its claim. 9. The Learned Departmental Representative (‘Ld. DR’ for short), on the other hand, opposed to setting aside the issue back to the lower authorities for the reason that the assessee has habitually been non-compliant before the lower authorities. 10. On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. AO as the assessment order was also an ex- parte order due to the failure of the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. We hereby remand all these issues back to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo assessment with the direction that the assessee shall comply with the proceeding before the Ld. AO without any undue delay from its side and basis which the Ld. AO shall decide the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8638/Mum/2025 M/s. Skan BPO Private Limited 4 issue on the merits and in accordance with law after duly considering the evidences relied upon by the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27.02.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "