DCIT Vs Deepak Shah (ITAT Mumbai)
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai against the order dated 21 June 2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2010–11. The matter was fixed for hearing on multiple dates, with the order sheet showing that it was listed more than ten times. Despite repeated notices issued through RPAD and e-mail, the assessee did not appear at any stage, nor did he file any request for adjournment. An e-mail from ACIT-41(3)(1), Mumbai dated 6 March 2025 recorded that physical service of notice also failed because the assessee had sold his flat and the current occupant was unaware of him. The assessee later filed an adjournment request on 18 September 2025 citing medical treatment relating to an eye surgery, after which the matter was adjourned to 15 October 2025. However, on 15 October 2025 and again on 3 November 2025, no one appeared on his behalf. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter and proceeded ex parte after hearing the Departmental Representative (DR).
The assessee was engaged in the business of building and developing properties and had filed his return declaring income of ₹9,89,590 for the relevant year. Based on information from the Investigation Wing and the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147. The AO found that the assessee had allegedly made purchases totaling ₹26,49,280 from five parties identified as hawala dealers: V3 Enterprises, S.K. Trading Co., Ace International, Liberty Trading Corporation, and Deep Enterprises. Summons under Section 131 and notices under Section 133(6) to all parties were returned unserved, and the assessee failed to produce any of them. In a statement recorded under Section 131, the assessee admitted that those parties were hawala dealers, and also stated that he had no transactions with S.K. Trading Co.
