VIJAY RAMESH VAIDYA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6692/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Vijay Ramesh Vaidya against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which affirmed an addition of Rs. 7,33,000 to the Assessee's income as unaccounted receipt under section 69(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The initial assessment by the Assessing Officer was contested by the Assessee, but due to non-compliance with notices, the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal noted the procedural lapses and remanded the case for a fresh decision, highlighting the need for substantial justice and proper adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313074 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVAS P.; LD.
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6692/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Vijay Ramesh Vaidya 801 Avishkar, K.W.Chitale Path, Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400038 PAN: ACCPV3933B Vs. Income Tax Officer, Room No. 112, Piramal Chambers, DR S S Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 02 .04 .2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28 .04 .2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act passed, made an addition of Rs. 7,33,000/- being unaccounted receipt and added the same in the income of the assessee u/s 69(a) of the Act and taxed as per provision of u/s 115(B)(D)(A) of the Act. ITA No.6692/M/2024 Mr. Vijay Ramesh Vaidya 2 3. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said assessment order and the addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on dated 21.01.2020, which was taken into consideration after four years, in the months of January, February and March of 2024, which resulted into non-compliance to the notices sent by Ld. Commissioner and, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner, by considering the dictum of law “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means law will help only those who are vigilant but not those who are careless of their right, affirmed the aforesaid addition, by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. This court has given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by observing that notice sent to the assessee through ITBA is returned back by the postal authority with the remarks “Unclaimed”, meaning thereby the Assessee is not situated at the address mentioned in form No. 35 and therefore, the assessee has nothing to substantiate its non-compliance. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Assessee was taken into consideration after a long gap and therefore, justification for non- compliances of the notices cannot be ruled out. Whatsoever , it may be, admittedly the issue involved in the instant case remained to be adjudicated, in absence of relevant reply/submission/document, in its right perspective and proper manner and hence for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, this court is inclined 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. 5. It is clarified that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly. ITA No.6692/M/2024 Mr. Vijay Ramesh Vaidya 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Disha Raut Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "