PCL Estates Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Email Glitch Denied Fair Hearing — ITAT Restores ₹8.9 Cr Loan Addition Case to CIT(A)
Assessee, engaged in real estate, filed its return declaring investments of ₹9.36 crore & unsecured loans aggregating ₹8.67 crore. AO treated the entire ₹8.90 crore as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, citing lack of evidence on the genuineness of loans received from M/s Flavour & Fragrance Ingredients & M/s Kukreja Construction Co.
Before CIT(A), Assessee did not attend the hearings, allegedly because the email ID registered was non-functional due to internal disputes. The appeal was dismissed ex parte.
Tribunal’s Findings/ Decision
- Assessee filed an affidavit from its director, Mrs. Rupa Kukreja, confirming that the company’s email was inactive, so notices sent by CIT(A) were never received.
- ITAT noted that though Assessee failed to update an alternate email, the principle of natural justice required an opportunity of hearing.
- Relying on Mukeshbhai Babarbhai Desai v. NFAC (Guj HC, 2025), it held that non-grant of video or physical hearing where communication failed vitiates the proceedings.
- Order of CIT(A) was set aside, & the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording Assessee proper opportunity to present evidence. Assessee was directed to provide a valid email ID for further communication.
Held
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
