M/S FIRST STONE,MUMBAI V. ITO - CIRCLE 20(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4124/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s First Stone, a partnership firm, appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 564 days, but the Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay and admitted the appeal. The main issues in the appeal were the introduction of new additions under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT (A), which were not part of the original assessment, and the failure to adjudicate on specific additions made by the Assessing Officer that were challenged by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority had not properly addressed the issues raised in the appeal, leading to a complete non-application of mind, and thus decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714775 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 43CA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM ITA No.4124/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s First Stone, Amrut Tower, 247, Telang Road Matunga, Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 20(1)(4), Mumbai-400012 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AABFF 7279F Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 25.09.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. There is delay of 564 days in filing the appeal. Having perused the application seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit, we are satisfied that delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4124 /Mum/2025 M/s First Stone vs. ITO, Mumbai 3. When the matter was called up, none appeared for the assessee despite notice, However, considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex- parte qua the assessee after considering the submissions of learned Departmental Representative (DR) and based on materials on record. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in introducing new additions of Rs. 38,99,700/- u/. 43CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 that were never made by the Ld. AO and not a part of the assessment proceedings. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating on issues that were completely different from the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in violating the principles of natural justice by failing to adjudicate upon the addition of Rs. 91,54,878/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was specifically challenged by the assessee in the appeal.” 4. Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.26,356/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made couple of addition as under: (i) on account of estimation of profit Rs.86,54,878/-. (ii) on account of unsecured loan Rs.5,00,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4124 /Mum/2025 M/s First Stone vs. ITO, Mumbai In aggregate the AO made addition of Rs.91,54,878/-. 5. Assessee contested the aforesaid additions by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Vide the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the materials on record, we find, while deciding the appeal, learned First Appellate Authority instead of deciding the issues arising in the present appeal has decided some other issue which is totally unconnected and not the subject matter of the appeal. Thus, the order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority reveals complete non-application of mind. 7. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned First Appellate Authority and restore the issues arising in the appeal to him for de novo adjudication through a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Billaiya) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 07/08/2025 Aks/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4124 /Mum/2025 M/s First Stone vs. ITO, Mumbai 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "