Rishiraj Radheshyam Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai ITAT set aside an ex-parte assessment involving ₹2.52 crore addition for alleged unexplained property investment, holding that the assessee was denied effective opportunity due to communication and procedural lapses.
The Tribunal observed:
- Assessment was completed u/s 144 ex-parte due to non-compliance
- Notices were sent to old address and email IDs not under assessee’s control
- The assessee, a senior citizen, was dependent on his CA and unaware of proceedings
- CIT(A) also passed order without proper consideration of facts and evidence
The ITAT noted:
- The assessee furnished a detailed affidavit explaining bona fide reasons for non-compliance
- The addition was substantial, and assessee claimed to possess supporting evidence
- Revenue did not dispute the explanation
Accordingly, the Tribunal:
- Condoned delay of 244 days
- Set aside the CIT(A) order
- Restored the matter to AO for fresh adjudication on merits after proper hearing
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing that substantial justice and fair opportunity must prevail over procedural defaults.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]for Assessment Year 2016–17, arising out of the assessment order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act.
