VIJAY LALITCHANDRA PAREKH,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25.1, KAUTILYA BHUVAN

ITA 5155/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh, the appellant, challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appellant contested various notices and additions made under sections 143(2) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming they were issued without proper verification and were based on insufficient grounds. The Tribunal noted the appellant's absence during previous hearings and, upon considering the explanations provided, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the appellant to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837719 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK; .
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIVIMAL PUNMIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Tangible material
• Section: 148; 143(3); 68; 145

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5155/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh Vastu Subh A Wing Ground Floor Rajamata Jijabai Road Pump House Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25.1 Kautilya Bhuvan BKC Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 PAN/GIR No. AIUPP3044K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby ShriVimal Punmiya Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 25.09.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the for the assessment year 2011-12. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. (iv) Notice has been issued on the basis of information received which is not independently verified by the Assessing Officer (v) The Assessing Officer acted only on the basis of suspicion and it cannot be said that Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.5155/Mum/2025 Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh notice under section 148 of the Act is based on his belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped income. (vi) Notice under section 148 of the Act is issued for making roving enquiry which is not permitted in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 14.09.2018 is not in conformity with instruction issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, which are binding on him and therefore notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is invalid and make subsequent assessment also invalid and liable to be annulled 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law notice issued under section 148 of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act, without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law in as much as (i) Reason recorded by Assessing Officer does not depict escapement of income by the appellant. (ii) There is no tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer. (iii) Notice has been issued on the direction of DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals erred in confirming addition made of Rs.4154400/- under section 68 of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer. Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to facts of the case addition of Rs.4154400/- should not have been confirmed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals erred in confirming rejection of Book of Accounts invoking provision of section 145 of the Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and/OR vary any of the grounds of appeal before OR at the time of hearing 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming order made under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of the Act, illegal, bad-in-law, ultra vires, without allowing reasonable opportunity of the hearing, without appreciating facts, submission and evidences in their proper perspective, without providing copies of material Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.5155/Mum/2025 Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh relied upon, without providing opportunity to cross examine of witnesses, is liable to be annulled. 9. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in confirming addition of Rs.4154400/- made under section 68 of the Act inspite of the fact that books of accounts have been rejected by the learned Assessing Officer, thus provision of section 68 of the Act is not applicable.” 2. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A) and in this regard Ld. AR has explained sufficient cause which prevented him for non appearance before the AO and Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for denovo assessment by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.5155/Mum/2025 Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 4. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. AO independently in accordance with law. 5 In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/02/2026 आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु\u0003बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "