Pradip Nathalal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10. The assessment had originally been completed under Section 143(3), and a subsequent order was passed under Sections 143(3) read with 147 and 254. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 41,33,870 on account of client code modification, Rs. 17,51,27,632 as unexplained money, and Rs. 82,677 as commission income.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that although the correct email address had been provided in Form No. 35, notices were repeatedly sent to a different email address not belonging to the assessee. An affidavit filed by the assessee stated that he became aware of multiple notices only after appointing new consultants in November 2025. Adjournment requests were thereafter made, including one seeking 30 days’ time due to health issues. The assessee believed the adjournment request had been accepted because no rejection was communicated. However, while attempting to upload submissions and documentary evidence on 27.12.2025, he discovered that the appeal had already been dismissed ex parte on 18.12.2025.
