M/S. AGORA MICROFINANCE INDIA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7719/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Agora Microfinance India Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) had erroneously considered facts and issues pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 instead of 2016-17, leading to a dismissal of the appeal without proper adjudication of the grounds raised. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and decided to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833681 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VINITA SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7719/Mum/2025 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 M/s Agora Microfinance India Limited 710 Vashi Infotech Park, Sector 30A Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 PAN: [AABCJ8464F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Vinita Shah Respondent by Shri Surendra Mohan, SR. DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 ORDER Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai dated 25.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2016-17, arising from the order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) r.w.s 254 of Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- \"1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by giving findings on the issues and grounds of appeal which were not raised in the impugned appeal, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7719/M/2025 M/s. Agora Microfinance India Limited 2 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submission filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well N.A. as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation as per the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, bad in law and void ab initio. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by appellant for the addition of Rs.3,07,25,523/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961as alleged Unexplained cash credit, without considering thefacts and circumstancesof the case. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well N.A. as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred not adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by appellant that the Learned Assessing Officer / TPO has made the addition of capital account transaction transfer pricing assessment, without considering thefacts and circumstancesof the case and provision of law. 6) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” 2. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned appellate order suffers from a fundamental factual error. It was submitted that though the appeal before the learned CIT(A) pertained to assessment year 2016-17, the learned CIT(A) has adjudicated the issues by referring to and relying upon facts relating to assessment year 2017-18. The learned Authorised Representative pointed out that appeals for both the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were pending before the learned CIT(A) and that, while disposing of the present appeal, the learned CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7719/M/2025 M/s. Agora Microfinance India Limited 3 has inadvertently considered the facts, additions and issues relating to assessment year 2017-18. 3. It was further submitted that the assessment for assessment year 2016-17 involved an addition of ₹3,07,25,523/- under section 68 of the Act, whereas the impugned appellate order refers to cash deposits during demonetisation and an addition of ₹1,53,91,500/-, which undisputedly pertain to assessment year 2017-18. In view of this factual mismatch, it was contended that none of the grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 have been properly adjudicated and, therefore, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 4. The learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and did not oppose the prayer for restoration of the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On examination of the impugned order, we find merit in the contention of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), while narrating the facts and adjudicating the issues, has clearly proceeded on the basis of facts relating to assessment year 2017-18, including reference to cash deposits during demonetisation and the corresponding addition under section 68. The assessment order under appeal before us, however, pertains to assessment year 2016-17, wherein the Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹3,07,25,523/- under section 68 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal arising from the assessment order for assessment year 2016-17. 6. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, strictly in accordance with law, after considering the correct assessment order, grounds of appeal and submissions of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7719/M/2025 M/s. Agora Microfinance India Limited 4 assessee. Needless to say, the learned CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Since the matter is being restored for fresh adjudication, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/02/2026 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 02/02/2026. Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "