IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4456/MUM/2025(A.Y: 2017-18)

AjitKundanmalji Jain ITO Ward 20(1)(1), 1/35, 29B Tarachand Building, D. N. R. No. 124, 1^st floor, Piramal Singh Road, Love Lane, Mazgaon, Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-

Mumbai-400 010 400 012.

PAN: ADYPJ1496Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. AR Department Represented by : ShriKiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025

O R D E R

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the orderof Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / Addl/ JCIT(A), Mysore [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”],passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated

28.10.2024for the A.Y. 2017-18 wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte for non prosecution of the case by the assessee as the assessee has failed to respond to the notices issued on various dates as mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the proceedings of authorities below are thatthe assessee filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 29/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,30,840/- The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for 'Scrutiny' under CASS by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 21/09/2018. Further, notice u/s 142(1) dated 19/06/2019 was also issued for submitting the details by the assessee. Further, a notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s 129 of the Act was issued and served electronically on 28/10/2019 in which necessary details related to cash deposited during demonetization period were called for. The assessee failed to comply with the said notice. However the assessee submitted only the part details, so another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 23/11/2019 which the assessee failed to comply. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 07/12/2019 was issued by the AO and in response, the assessee submitted the details. Further, the AO was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee and proceeded to make addition to the total income of Rs. 4,19,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings were also initiated.

3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)who dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parteon the ground that assessee has failed to pursue the case despite multiple opportunities given and no documentary or written submissions were filed before him.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee preferred the appeal before us.The main grievance of the assessee is that no notice was received by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limini.

5. We have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted on behalf of the assessee that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to offer effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and has dismissed the appeal and as such the assessee was prevented from presenting its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that after filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), no notice has been received by the assesseeand only 2 occasion when the notice was received, the assessee has sought time for adjournment to submit the details as he was suffering from various ailments and was not medically fit for a long time and by this reasons, the assessee could not pursue its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only for non prosecutionof the case where there is no proof of notices of various dates were served upon the assessee, decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on meritwithout giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order su