SUBHASH KUMAR CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 9436/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Subhash Kumar Choudhary, the appellant, who challenged an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was regarding an unjustified addition of 43,33,059 under section 69A of the Act, which the appellant argued was arbitrary and unsustainable as he was neither the owner nor in possession of any unexplained valuables during the year in question. The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal but, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal found that the appellant was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and thus decided to restore the matter for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for substantial justice over technicalities.

• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHIT KRISHNACHANDANI VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 9436/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Subhash Kumar Choudhary 184 Malad Shopping Centre, S.V. Road Malad (W) Mumbai - 400064 Vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai Room No. 15B Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN/GIR No. AABPC9312N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mohit Krishnachandani (Virtually appeared) Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. AR.) Date of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 02.04.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2015-16. The following grounds are reproduced below: “Ground No. 1 Unjustified Addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 9436/Mum/2025 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of ₹43,33,059/- made under section 69A of the Act, which is arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable, as the Appellant was neither found to be the owner nor in possession or control of any unexplained money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article during the year under consideration. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal. ” 2. At the very outset we noticed that there is delay of approximately 184 days in filing the appeal before us. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non-deliberate delay then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and considering the expression “sufficient cause” liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground raised by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 9436/Mum/2025 3. From the records, we also noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A) and consequently, considering the documents placed on record, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 5. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh by providing adequate opportunity of hearing, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on the file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 6. Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 9436/Mum/2025 7. Needless to mention that Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 23/03/2026 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "