VIVEK KUMAR MAHENDRA SINGH ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2434/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh, the appellant, who contested an exparte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The AO had added Rs.29,21,000 to the assessee's income based on cash deposits, which the assessee claimed were not fully accounted for in the assessment. The assessee argued that he did not receive the notices for the hearing due to health issues and was unaware of the proceedings until he received a penalty notice. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to his illness and treatment in Uttar Pradesh. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and the lack of proper communication from the tax authorities, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711292 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIF KAR MALI
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPAN USRETHE
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J(SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2434/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2017-18) Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh Plot No.376, Flat No.201, Sai Kripa Building, Sector 6 Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(4), Mumbai PAN/GIR No.BIRPS9595L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sapan Usrethe Revenue by Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 04/01/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144 for the A.Y.2017- 18. 2. Before us assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.29,21,000/- on merits and it had been stated that ld. AO had passed exparte order because notice of hearing could not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2434/Mum/2025 Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh 2 be received by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was a delay in filing of the appeal. Before us it had been stated that the appeal is barred by limitation by almost one year. Before us ld. Counsel has stated that here in this case the assessment order was passed based on information received through ITBA AIMS that assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 14,26,000/- in the bank account. Whereas, the total cash deposit during the year was Rs.29,21,000/-. Notices issued u/s.142(1) through e-mail was not received by the assessee as he was suffering from jaundice and shifted to his native place, Uttar Pradesh for treatment. After he arrived in Mumbai he came to know that notices were sent through Income Tax portal. Immediately, when assessee came to know about the notices, he filed the return of income on 23/09/2019 however, ld. AO had passed an exparte order u/s.144 on 28/09/2019 without considering return of income. 3. Assessee was in the business of civil contract, supply of labour and trading in computer parts and accessories and has opened a current account. He has received some civil contract work for the projects for which he received cash from one party. When assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. AO on 28/09/2019 when the penalty order passed and then he came to know about the assessment order has been passed exparte and he filed the appeal on 17/03/2020. The assessee received notice in the year 2023 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2434/Mum/2025 Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh 3 from the office of the ld. CIT(A), assessee had responded and he also gave clarification for the slight delay in filing of the appeal. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee responded to the notice and gave the reasons for delay that he was suffering from jaundice and had gone to native place and also filed medical certificate however, ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s petition and has dismissed the appeal on account of delay. 4. In these circumstances and looking to the fact that assessee is a very small time contractor and not well verse with the notices being issued through ITBA portals and e- communication could not respond in time and that he had gone to native place and he was suffering from jaundice therefore, matter should be restored back to the file of the ld.AO. 5. Ld. DR also did not have any objection. Fresh assessment order is being passed by the ld. AO. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances as narrated by the ld. Counsel before us, it is seen that both ld. CIT(A) order and assessment order has been passed exparte based on certain information. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are remanding this matter back to the file of the ld. AO to consider the explanation of the assessee and verify the same and passed a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2434/Mum/2025 Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh 4 directed to comply with the notices and submit all the details required to substantiate his case. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22nd July, 2025. Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 22/07/2025 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2434/Mum/2025 Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh 5 Printed from counselvise.com "