JAYAKAR SHETTY,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 41(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

ITA 3528/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jayakar Shetty against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the non-adjudication of the dispute on merits due to the assessee's repeated non-compliance and non-appearance. The ITAT criticized the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal without a substantive examination of the merits, despite the assessee's non-compliance. The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination, emphasizing the statutory obligation to adjudicate appeals on merits regardless of the assessee's participation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774667 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. B.N.Bhattacharjee and another, Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CIT, CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/S Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO, Sanjay Chandrakant Gaonkar Vs ITO, Jerry John Mendonca Vs ITO, CIT Vs Shree Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution; Non compliance
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayakar Shetty, 3rd floor, Sai Krupa Chandvarkar Cross Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. ITO Circle 41(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AANPS 8452 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 09/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is preferred against order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following ground: The Hon’ CIT (A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Learned AO in his assessment Order u/s 143 (3) of the Act of Rs. 75,55,552/- u/s 68 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 2. At the very threshold, we find that the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income suffers from a fundamental infirmity inasmuch as the issue in dispute has not been adjudicated on merits. It is well settled un section 250 of the Income ‘the Act’) that the Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi statutorily enjoined to dispose of an appeal by a reasoned order dealing with the merits of the controversy, even i the assessee chooses to remain absent or fails to file the requisite submissions. Non-appearance of the assessee cannot be a ground, in itself, to dismiss an appeal in limine, nor can it absolve the first appellate authority of his stat dispute on merits. 2.1 From the record, it emerges that the Ld. CIT(A), after recording the non-compliance on the part of the assessee to repeated notices, has mainly referred to section 68 of the Act and certain judicial precedents relating to dismissal for non dismissed the appeal. The relevant extract of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order is reproduced as under: “8: NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE APPEAL NOTICES It is seen that the appellant has been offered sufficient opportunities before disposal of the appeal was instituted as on 24.01.2020, but the appellant did not furnish any documentary evidences on the dates posted for hearing in support of his claim the appellant failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal with evidences. ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 At the very threshold, we find that the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] suffers from a fundamental infirmity inasmuch as the issue in dispute has not been adjudicated on merits. It is well settled un section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) that the Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, is statutorily enjoined to dispose of an appeal by a reasoned order dealing with the merits of the controversy, even in a situation where the assessee chooses to remain absent or fails to file the requisite appearance of the assessee cannot be a ground, in itself, to dismiss an appeal in limine, nor can it absolve the first appellate authority of his statutory obligation to adjudicate the 2.1 From the record, it emerges that the Ld. CIT(A), after recording compliance on the part of the assessee to repeated notices, has mainly referred to section 68 of the Act and certain judicial precedents relating to dismissal for non-prosecution, dismissed the appeal. The relevant extract of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order is reproduced as under: COMPLIANCE TO THE APPEAL NOTICES It is seen that the appellant has been offered sufficient opportunities before disposal of the appeal since the appeal was instituted as on 24.01.2020, but the appellant did not furnish any documentary evidences on the dates posted for hearing in support of his claim the appellant failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal with evidences. Jaykar Shetty 2 ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 At the very threshold, we find that the impugned order passed tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] suffers from a fundamental infirmity inasmuch as the issue in dispute has not been adjudicated on merits. It is well settled under tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as judicial authority, is statutorily enjoined to dispose of an appeal by a reasoned order n a situation where the assessee chooses to remain absent or fails to file the requisite appearance of the assessee cannot be a ground, in itself, to dismiss an appeal in limine, nor can it absolve the first utory obligation to adjudicate the 2.1 From the record, it emerges that the Ld. CIT(A), after recording compliance on the part of the assessee to repeated notices, has mainly referred to section 68 of the Act and certain judicial prosecution, and thereafter dismissed the appeal. The relevant extract of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order It is seen that the appellant has been offered sufficient since the appeal was instituted as on 24.01.2020, but the appellant did not furnish any documentary evidences on the dates posted for hearing in support of his claim the appellant failed to Printed from counselvise.com There are no re under; 1. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 08.01.2021. 2. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 21.01.2021 3. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 27.09.2023 4. Hearing letter dated; 26.09.2024 5. Hearing letter dated; 07.03.2025 Since the appea issue of non covered vide following decisions as under; As there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to be . dismissed in terms of verdicts of and the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of CIT v. B.N.Bhattacharjee and another (10 CTR 354) held that an appeal means an effective appeal; “Expression \"prefers an appeal\" would mean effectively prosecuting an Appeal” Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray. The Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Lat TukojiRaoHolkar v. CIT, 223 ITR 48(MP) has held party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 1TD 320 (Del).Following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd (supra), the Chennai Tribunal has also dismissed appeal for non and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO in ITA No. 134/Mds/2011 dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006 to add here that the laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied the well dormientibusjurasubveniunt\". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligence and careful plaintiff is favoure ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 There are no responses to the following notices/letters as Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 08.01.2021. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 21.01.2021 Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 27.09.2023 Hearing letter dated; 26.09.2024 Hearing letter dated; 07.03.2025 Since the appeal filed, the assessee remains unresponsive. The issue of noncompliance of appeal proceedings are squarely covered vide following decisions as under; As there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to be . dismissed in terms of verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of CIT v. B.N.Bhattacharjee and another (10 CTR held that an appeal means an effective appeal; “Expression \"prefers an appeal\" would mean effectively prosecuting an Appeal” Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the The Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Lat TukojiRaoHolkar v. CIT, 223 ITR 48(MP) has held party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not ound to answer the Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 1TD 320 (Del).Following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd (supra), the Chennai Tribunal has also dismissed appeal for non- prosecution in the case of M/S Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO in ITA No. 134/Mds/2011 dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006-07. It is pertinent to add here that the laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied the well-known maxim \"Vigilantibus non dormientibusjurasubveniunt\". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligence and careful plaintiff is favoured to the prejudicial of him who is careless. Jaykar Shetty 3 ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 sponses to the following notices/letters as l filed, the assessee remains unresponsive. The compliance of appeal proceedings are squarely As there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of CIT v. B.N.Bhattacharjee and another (10 CTR “Expression \"prefers an appeal\" would mean effectively Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the The Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Late TukojiRaoHolkar v. CIT, 223 ITR 48(MP) has held that if a party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 1TD 320 (Del).Following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd (supra), the Chennai Tribunal has also M/S Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO in ITA No. 07. It is pertinent to add here that the laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in known maxim \"Vigilantibus non dormientibusjurasubveniunt\". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligence and careful d to the prejudicial of him who is careless. Printed from counselvise.com In case of: Sanjay ChandrakantGaonkarVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Appeal Number: ITA No. 364/MUM/2022 Date of Judgement/Order: 17/07/2023 (ITAT Mumbai) Held as under; “5. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued as much a notices and thereafter issues final opportunity but no effective compliance was made on the part of the assessee. Further on 28.02.2017 the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee filed reply, which was forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer calling for remand report. Consequently, the Assessing Officer called for the assessee for verification of the documents, but again no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and this fact was reported by the Assessing Officer to the L detail on 10.03.2017, which was forwarded to the Assessing Officer for verification but again no compliance was made by the assessee facts and circumstance, i cooperated before the lower authorities for verification of the its own documents and claims. Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assesses requested for restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest appropriate to restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A), however looking to the non disregard of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), impose cost of Rs. 20,000/ into Prime Minister Relief Fund within seven days of receipt of this order. Further, ITAT Mumbai in case of Jerry John Mendonca In ITA No/1197/Mum/2023 order held under; “Jerry John MendoncaVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Introdu Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently heard an appeal filed by Jerry John Mendonca against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income year 2011-12. The appeal raised grounds regarding non compliance with income tax proceedings before lower authorities. Analysis: The ITAT considered the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay of 208 days. However, the ITAT observed that the assessee had failed to compl before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A). Despite various notices and opportunities, the assessee did not respond or participate in the proceedings. The ITAT noted that the appeal had been dismissed by the Ld. CIT( ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 In case of: Sanjay ChandrakantGaonkarVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Appeal Number: ITA No. 364/MUM/2022 Date of Judgement/Order: 17/07/2023 (ITAT Mumbai) Held as “5. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued as much a notices and thereafter issues final opportunity but no effective compliance was made on the part of the assessee. Further on 28.02.2017 the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee filed reply, which was forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the sing Officer calling for remand report. Consequently, the Assessing Officer called for the assessee for verification of the documents, but again no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and this fact was reported by the Assessing Officer to the Ld. CIT(A). Once again, the assessee filed part detail on 10.03.2017, which was forwarded to the Assessing Officer for verification but again no compliance was made by before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts and circumstance, it is evident the assessee has not cooperated before the lower authorities for verification of the its own documents and claims. Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assesses requested for restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A), however looking to the non-compliant conduct of the assessee and total disregard of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), impose cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee is directed to deposit the same into Prime Minister Relief Fund within seven days of receipt of Further, ITAT Mumbai in case of Jerry John Mendonca In ITA No/1197/Mum/2023 order held under; “Jerry John MendoncaVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Introdu Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently heard an appeal filed by Jerry John Mendonca against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment 12. The appeal raised grounds regarding non ce with income tax proceedings before lower authorities. Analysis: The ITAT considered the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay of 208 days. However, the ITAT observed that the assessee had failed to comply with income tax proceedings before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A). Despite various notices and opportunities, the assessee did not respond or participate in the proceedings. The ITAT noted that the appeal had been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the lack of Jaykar Shetty 4 ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 In case of: Sanjay ChandrakantGaonkarVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Appeal Number: ITA No. 364/MUM/2022 Date of Judgement/Order: 17/07/2023 (ITAT Mumbai) Held as “5. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued as much as four notices and thereafter issues final opportunity but no effective compliance was made on the part of the assessee. Further on 28.02.2017 the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee filed reply, which was forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the sing Officer calling for remand report. Consequently, the Assessing Officer called for the assessee for verification of the documents, but again no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and this fact was reported by the Assessing d. CIT(A). Once again, the assessee filed part detail on 10.03.2017, which was forwarded to the Assessing Officer for verification but again no compliance was made by before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above t is evident the assessee has not cooperated before the lower authorities for verification of the its own documents and claims. Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assesses requested for restoring the matter back to the file of of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A), however compliant conduct of the assessee and total disregard of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), impose cost essee is directed to deposit the same into Prime Minister Relief Fund within seven days of receipt of Further, ITAT Mumbai in case of Jerry John Mendonca In “Jerry John MendoncaVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently heard an appeal filed by Jerry John Mendonca against the order of the tax (Appeals) for the assessment 12. The appeal raised grounds regarding non- ce with income tax proceedings before lower authorities. Analysis: The ITAT considered the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay of 208 days. However, the ITAT observed that the y with income tax proceedings before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A). Despite various notices and opportunities, the assessee did not respond or participate in the proceedings. The ITAT noted that the appeal A) due to the lack of Printed from counselvise.com compliance and non the ITAT found it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for its non the assessee to deposit the cost into the Prime Fund within 30 days of the receipt of the order”. Further in landmark decision in the case of CIT Vs Shree Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust (Gujarat High Court) R/Tax Appeal No. 1335 of 2018 Date of Judgement/Order: 30/07/2019 Assessee remained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex parte order. The Hon’ble High Court states that if an order is passed by the CIT (A) on merits despit assessee failed to appear before the CIT (A) at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be termed as ex the CIT (A) after service of notices on the assesse question of failure of natural justice. It cannot be said that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing. The order of the CIT (A) is more than clear. On more than one occasion, the assessee remained absent before the CIT (A), and circumstances, the CIT had no option but to look into the records and decide the In view of the above the primary onus of complying to the notices and furnishing the evidence/documentary evidence are with that of the the appeal is dismissed. 8.1 To sum up appeal is dismissed on all grounds on merits as well as on non 2.2 While there can be no quarrel with the principle that the assessee is duty bound to diligently prosecute his appeal, it is equally trite that the dismissal of an appeal for default simpliciter is not contemplated by the statute. What is required is a disposal on merits, based upon the material available on record. 2.3 In the present case, what weighs with us is that the assessee has indeed remained unresponsive on multiple occasions, thereby ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 compliance and non-participation by the assessee. However, the ITAT found it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for its non-compliant behaviour. The ITAT directed the assessee to deposit the cost into the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days of the receipt of the order”. Further in landmark decision in the case of CIT Vs Shree Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust (Gujarat High Court) R/Tax Appeal No. 1335 of 2018 Date of Judgement/Order: while deciding the issue under consideration if Assessee remained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex parte order. The Hon’ble High Court states that if an order is passed by the CIT (A) on merits despite the fact that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT (A) at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be termed as ex-prate. An order having been passed by the CIT (A) after service of notices on the assessee, there is no question of failure of natural justice. It cannot be said that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing. The order of the CIT (A) is more than clear. On more than one occasion, the assessee remained absent before the CIT (A), and circumstances, the CIT had no option but to look into the records and decide the appeal on its own merit. In view of the above the primary onus of complying to the notices and furnishing the evidence/documentary evidence are with that of the appellant. In view of the above non- compliance the appeal is dismissed. 8.1 To sum up appeal is dismissed on all grounds on merits as well as on noncompliance accordingly.” While there can be no quarrel with the principle that the bound to diligently prosecute his appeal, it is equally trite that the dismissal of an appeal for default simpliciter is not contemplated by the statute. What is required is a disposal on merits, based upon the material available on record. ent case, what weighs with us is that the assessee has indeed remained unresponsive on multiple occasions, thereby Jaykar Shetty 5 ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 participation by the assessee. However, the ITAT found it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000 on compliant behaviour. The ITAT directed Minister Relief Further in landmark decision in the case of CIT Vs Shree Nirman Foundation Charitable Trust (Gujarat High Court) R/Tax Appeal No. 1335 of 2018 Date of Judgement/Order: ing the issue under consideration if Assessee remained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex- parte order. The Hon’ble High Court states that if an order is e the fact that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT (A) at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) prate. An order having been passed by e, there is no question of failure of natural justice. It cannot be said that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing. The order of the CIT (A) is more than clear. On more than one occasion, the assessee remained absent before the CIT (A), and in such circumstances, the CIT had no option but to look into the records In view of the above the primary onus of complying to the notices and furnishing the evidence/documentary evidence are compliance 8.1 To sum up appeal is dismissed on all grounds on merits as While there can be no quarrel with the principle that the bound to diligently prosecute his appeal, it is equally trite that the dismissal of an appeal for default simpliciter is not contemplated by the statute. What is required is a disposal on ent case, what weighs with us is that the assessee has indeed remained unresponsive on multiple occasions, thereby Printed from counselvise.com displaying negligence in the conduct of the appellate proceedings. Nonetheless, the interest of substantial justice would be better served if one more opportunity is afforded to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee diligently cooperates in the proceedings hereafter. At the same time, it is made clear that the assessee cannot be permi take the process of law for granted, and any further failure on its part shall entitle the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on merits, on the basis of material available on record, in accordance with law. 3. In view of the foregoing discuss order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings without fail. The Ld. CIT( speaking order in accordance with law. assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/ (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 displaying negligence in the conduct of the appellate proceedings. Nonetheless, the interest of substantial justice would be better one more opportunity is afforded to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee diligently cooperates in the proceedings hereafter. At the same time, it is made clear that the assessee cannot be permi take the process of law for granted, and any further failure on its part shall entitle the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on merits, on the basis of material available on record, in accordance . In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings without fail. The Ld. CIT(A), in turn, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for onounced in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/ (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaykar Shetty 6 ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 displaying negligence in the conduct of the appellate proceedings. Nonetheless, the interest of substantial justice would be better one more opportunity is afforded to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee diligently cooperates in the proceedings hereafter. At the same time, it is made clear that the assessee cannot be permitted to take the process of law for granted, and any further failure on its part shall entitle the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on merits, on the basis of material available on record, in accordance ion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings A), in turn, shall pass a reasoned and The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Mumbai; Dated: 09/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Jaykar Shetty 7 ITA No. 3528/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "