MR GUDUSAB RAMJAN MUJAWAR,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 28(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6595/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Gudusab Ramjan Mujawar, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The original assessment for AY 2011-12 was reopened by the AO based on CIB/AIR data indicating a cash deposit of Rs.1,31,96,000 in the assessee's bank account. The assessee did not respond to the notices from both the AO and the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeal on its merits despite the non-prosecution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47143 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHANGEPATIL PUSHKARAJ RAMESH; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: VALLABHADAS D. PARMAR; AR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6595/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Gudusab Ramjan Mujawar 314, Arenja Corner Plot No. 71 Sector – 17, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 [PAN: ALAPM6793M] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward – 28(1)(5), Mumbai अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vallabhadas D. Parmar, Advocate, A/R Revenue by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 14/08/2023 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal as the order passed by Ld CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of section 250 of the IT Act as CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeal on the ground of non-prosecution of appeal by assessee. Reliance is placed on decision of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom). 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (A) erred in passing ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to appellant. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal, (i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering merits of addition on account of cash deposits Rs 1,31,96,000/- in various bank I.T.A. No. 6595/Mum/2024 2 accounts as such deposits were either re-deposits of previous cash withdrawals or cash on hand or represents civil contraction business turn over and only profit component needs to be added if any. 5. On facts and circumstances of the case in law ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex- parte without disposing grounds of appeal against reopening of case u/s 147 of the I T Act 1961 on merit as same were not reopened in accordance with the law. 6. The appellant craves leave to consider each of the above ground of appeal as independent and without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any or all grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file the return of income for the impugned assessment year. The AO was in possession of CIB/AIR data from which he came to know that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,31,96,000/- in the Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. The assessment was accordingly reopened and statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 3.1. In spite of notice, the assessee did not attend the proceedings. The AO framed the ex-parte order and made the addition of Rs.1,31,96,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but again did not respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has changed his address and the changed address was informed to the Department but the notices were sent at the old address. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal considering the merits of the case and not simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the case, I.T.A. No. 6595/Mum/2024 3 after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 8th April, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 08/04/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014 थ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai "