AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari against the order of the CIT(A) - NFAC, which had dismissed her appeal on grounds of non-prosecution and non-adjudication on the merits. The primary issues in the appeal included the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, the incorrect computation of capital gains under section 50C, and the disallowance under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's circumstances, including her health issues and the failure of her tax consultant to communicate effectively, which led to the non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713262 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
31-07-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Room No. 402, Mina Centre Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Vs. ITO-23(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. ARDPA 8448 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ravindra Poojary, Adv. Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds: “I. Ex-party order 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the order dated 07.08.2023 as passed by the Printed from counselvise.com Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non adjudicate on the grounds consideration. The said order being in violation of the provisions of Section 250 and 251 of the Act. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred in deciding the appeal ex parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. II. Disallowance u/s 50C of the act: 3) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals had erred in compute capital gain by adopting value of property determ valuation authority as deemed sale consideration under section 50C(1) without considering the fact that where assessee objects to adoption of stamp duty value as deemed sale consideration, A.O is duty reference to DVO under su determining value of property and thereafter proceed to compute capital gains by following provisions of subsection (3) of section 50C of the act. Therefore the working of the capital gain by the A.O is bad in law. III. Disallowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/ 4) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals had erred in making addition of Rs.43,79,785/ new immovable property costing to R been alongwith two other co 1/3th of Rs.86,10,000/ Rs.28,70,000/ considering the actual investment made by 2. The brief facts leading to assessee filed her return of income on 31.08.2018, declaring a total income of ₹3,66,180/ the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non- prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds of appeal and the issues under consideration. The said order being in violation of the provisions of Section 250 and 251 of the Act. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred in deciding appeal ex parte in violation of the principle of natural II. Disallowance u/s 50C of the act: 3) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals had erred in compute capital gain by adopting value of property determined by stamp valuation authority as deemed sale consideration under section 50C(1) without considering the fact that where assessee objects to adoption of stamp duty value as deemed sale consideration, A.O is duty-bound to make a reference to DVO under sub-section (2) of section 50C for determining value of property and thereafter proceed to compute capital gains by following provisions of subsection (3) of section 50C of the act. Therefore the working of the capital gain by the A.O is bad in law. allowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/ 4) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals had erred in making addition of Rs.43,79,785/- on the basis of the assessee has invested in new immovable property costing to Rs.82,00,000/ been alongwith two other co-owners and allowed only 1/3th of Rs.86,10,000/- including stamp duty i.e. Rs.28,70,000/- deduction under section 54 without considering the actual investment made by the assessee. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessee filed her return of income on 31.08.2018, declaring a total 3,66,180/-. The return was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 2 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals is bad in law since it dismisses the prosecution and does not of appeal and the issues under consideration. The said order being in violation of the 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred in deciding appeal ex parte in violation of the principle of natural 3) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals had erred in compute capital gain ined by stamp valuation authority as deemed sale consideration under section 50C(1) without considering the fact that where assessee objects to adoption of stamp duty value as bound to make a section (2) of section 50C for determining value of property and thereafter proceed to compute capital gains by following provisions of subsection (3) of section 50C of the act. Therefore the working of the allowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/- 4) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals had erred in making addition of on the basis of the assessee has invested in s.82,00,000/- had owners and allowed only including stamp duty i.e. deduction under section 54 without assessee.” the present appeal are that the assessee filed her return of income on 31.08.2018, declaring a total . The return was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income- Printed from counselvise.com tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of under the head \"Long 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"]. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to th various statutory notices issued on 15.11.2022, 18.07.2023, and the final notice dated 25.07.2023. The Ld. CIT(A), after noting the absence of any submissions on merits, proceeded to adjudicate the appeal and, relying upon the decision of this Court in Bhattachargee v. State of Orissa merely filing an appeal without pursuing it effectively amounts to abandonment. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “4.1 Considering the appellant's request the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notices dated 15.11.2022, 18 25.07.2023 and requested the appellant to file the submission by 01.08.2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not co submission in support of grounds of appeal. So it is held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the ground. 5.1 The Hon'bleITAT in ITA No. 1025 A.Y. 2002-03 in the Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on 16.04.2021, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of under the head \"Long-Term Capital Gains\". Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"]. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to th various statutory notices issued on 15.11.2022, 18.07.2023, and the final notice dated 25.07.2023. The Ld. CIT(A), after noting the absence of any submissions on merits, proceeded to adjudicate the appeal and, relying upon the decision of this Court in Bhattachargee v. State of Orissa [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], held that merely filing an appeal without pursuing it effectively amounts to abandonment. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 4.1 Considering the appellant's request the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notices dated 15.11.2022, 18.07.2023 and the final opportunity was given on 25.07.2023 and requested the appellant to file the submission by 01.08.2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made no submission in support of grounds of appeal. So it is held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the 5.1 The Hon'bleITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 3 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 r referred to as \"the Act\") on 16.04.2021, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹43,79,785/- Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"]. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to the various statutory notices issued on 15.11.2022, 18.07.2023, and the final notice dated 25.07.2023. The Ld. CIT(A), after noting the absence of any submissions on merits, proceeded to adjudicate the appeal and, relying upon the decision of this Court in B.N. [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], held that merely filing an appeal without pursuing it effectively amounts to abandonment. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. The relevant 4.1 Considering the appellant's request the delay in filing of the 5. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notices dated .07.2023 and the final opportunity was given on 25.07.2023 and requested the appellant to file the submission by 01.08.2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate mply with the notices and hence made no submission in support of grounds of appeal. So it is held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the 1027/Chandi/2005 for the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Printed from counselvise.com Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits. 6. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusio more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case the AO has rightly assessed an income of appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 43,79,785/ hereby confirmed. 4. The assessee thereafter approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing an ap on 06.10.2023. The appeal, thus, was delayed by 552 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit. The affidavit is reproduced “2. I say that I was appointed Shri Farog Husain, a tax consultant to look after the income tax proceeding who has registered himself on my behalf on the portal of the Income Tax Department by procuring a logging ID and a password. The Commissioner of Appeal / NFAC order u/s 250 was received by my tax consultant Shri Farog husain on 07.08.2023 by his email ID \"nm.associates3463@gmail.com\" but same was not handed over to assessee and did not taken any further action. 3. Further, I say that I was s and taking regular treatment from R.K.Hospital. I had hospitalized due to hypertenstion & cardiovascular disease. Also, My Husban Mr. Mohd Asim Ansari was suffering from Diabetes and Blood pressure and my Granddaughter Ms Ansari has suffering from Synpneumonic effusion. Due to long ill-health of whole family, I could not able to made an enquiry on the status of my tax matter. However, I made an enquiry on the Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on 6. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case the AO has rightly assessed an income of Rs. 47,45,965/-. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 43,79,785/ confirmed.” The assessee thereafter approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing an appeal on 12.04.2025, which The appeal, thus, was delayed by 552 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit. The relevant part reproduced as under: 2. I say that I was appointed Shri Farog Husain, a tax consultant to look after the income tax proceeding who has registered himself on my behalf on the portal of the Income Tax Department by procuring a logging ID and a password. The ner of Appeal / NFAC order u/s 250 was received by my tax consultant Shri Farog husain on 07.08.2023 by his email ID \"nm.associates3463@gmail.com\" but same was not handed over to assessee and did not taken any further action. 3. Further, I say that I was suffering from hypertension disease and taking regular treatment from R.K.Hospital. I had hospitalized due to hypertenstion & cardiovascular disease. Also, My Husban Mr. Mohd Asim Ansari was suffering from Diabetes and Blood pressure and my Granddaughter Ms Ansari has suffering from Synpneumonic effusion. Due to long health of whole family, I could not able to made an enquiry on the status of my tax matter. However, I made an enquiry on the Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 4 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on 6. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to n that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case the AO has . Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 43,79,785/- is The assessee thereafter approached the Income Tax Appellate peal on 12.04.2025, which was due The appeal, thus, was delayed by 552 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of relevant part of 2. I say that I was appointed Shri Farog Husain, a tax consultant to look after the income tax proceeding who has registered himself on my behalf on the portal of the Income Tax Department by procuring a logging ID and a password. The ner of Appeal / NFAC order u/s 250 was received by my tax consultant Shri Farog husain on 07.08.2023 by his email ID \"nm.associates3463@gmail.com\" but same was not handed over to assessee and did not taken any further action. uffering from hypertension disease and taking regular treatment from R.K.Hospital. I had hospitalized due to hypertenstion & cardiovascular disease. Also, My Husban Mr. Mohd Asim Ansari was suffering from Diabetes and Blood pressure and my Granddaughter Ms Ifra Ansari has suffering from Synpneumonic effusion. Due to long health of whole family, I could not able to made an enquiry on the status of my tax matter. However, I made an enquiry on the Printed from counselvise.com status of my tax matter on 04 appeal had not been filed against the NFAC order and I took action to discontinue the tax consultant shri Farog husain and appointed a new tax consultant shri Mohammed Anas. The new tax consultant forwarded the case paper to the tax counsel. The tax counsel prepared and filed appeal on 12.04.2025 after the delay of 553 days. 4. I say that, it was the first time I got involved in tax litigations, due to a lack of clarity on tax laws, I was under the impression that my case was properly represented by the ear consultant but due to some inadvertent events the filing of the appeal was delayed by 553 days delay before ITAT. 5. I say that the delay was not intentional and the same was due to circumstances beyond my 4.1 In the affidavit, Shri Farog Husain, a tax consultant, who was authorized to act on her behalf and had registered himself on the Income Tax portal using his own email ID. It was further stated that the order passed under Section 250 of t 07.08.2023 by the said consultant but was never communicated to the assessee. The assessee further submitted that she and her family members were simultaneously undergoing medical treatment for various ailments incl complications, diabetes, and synpneumonic effusion, which further contributed to her inability to inquire into the status of her case. It was only on 04.04.2025 that she discovered the appeal had not been filed. Thereafter, she replaced the earlier consultant and took immediate steps to engage new counsel, who then filed the present appeal on 12.04.2025. It was further pleaded by the assessee that she was not conversant with the intricacies of tax litigation and had Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 status of my tax matter on 04-04-2025 and learned that the appeal had not been filed against the NFAC order and I took action to discontinue the tax consultant shri Farog husain and appointed a new tax consultant shri Mohammed Anas. The new tax consultant forwarded the case paper to the tax counsel. The l prepared and filed appeal on 12.04.2025 after the delay of 553 days. 4. I say that, it was the first time I got involved in tax litigations, due to a lack of clarity on tax laws, I was under the impression that my case was properly represented by the ear consultant but due to some inadvertent events the filing of the appeal was delayed by 553 days delay before ITAT. 5. I say that the delay was not intentional and the same was due to circumstances beyond my control.” In the affidavit, the assessee averred that she had engaged one Shri Farog Husain, a tax consultant, who was authorized to act on her behalf and had registered himself on the Income Tax portal using his own email ID. It was further stated that the order passed under Section 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) was received on 07.08.2023 by the said consultant but was never communicated to the assessee. The assessee further submitted that she and her family members were simultaneously undergoing medical treatment for various ailments including hypertension, cardiovascular complications, diabetes, and synpneumonic effusion, which further contributed to her inability to inquire into the status of her case. It was only on 04.04.2025 that she discovered the appeal had not r, she replaced the earlier consultant and took immediate steps to engage new counsel, who then filed the present appeal on 12.04.2025. It was further pleaded by the assessee that she was not conversant with the intricacies of tax litigation and had Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 5 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 2025 and learned that the appeal had not been filed against the NFAC order and I took action to discontinue the tax consultant shri Farog husain and appointed a new tax consultant shri Mohammed Anas. The new tax consultant forwarded the case paper to the tax counsel. The l prepared and filed appeal on 12.04.2025 after the 4. I say that, it was the first time I got involved in tax litigations, due to a lack of clarity on tax laws, I was under the impression that my case was properly represented by the earlier tax consultant but due to some inadvertent events the filing of the 5. I say that the delay was not intentional and the same was see averred that she had engaged one Shri Farog Husain, a tax consultant, who was authorized to act on her behalf and had registered himself on the Income Tax portal using his own email ID. It was further stated that the order passed he Act by the Ld. CIT(A) was received on 07.08.2023 by the said consultant but was never communicated to the assessee. The assessee further submitted that she and her family members were simultaneously undergoing medical treatment uding hypertension, cardiovascular complications, diabetes, and synpneumonic effusion, which further contributed to her inability to inquire into the status of her case. It was only on 04.04.2025 that she discovered the appeal had not r, she replaced the earlier consultant and took immediate steps to engage new counsel, who then filed the present appeal on 12.04.2025. It was further pleaded by the assessee that she was not conversant with the intricacies of tax litigation and had Printed from counselvise.com genuinely believed that her matter was being duly pursued by her consultant. The delay, therefore, was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occasioned due to circumstances beyond her control 5 Having considered the contents of the affidavit and the explanation tendered therein, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. It is well settled that liberal construction must be accorded to applications seeking condonation of delay, particularly when substantive rights are involved and the explanation offered is bona fide and not lacking in diligence. In the present case, the circumstances narrated by the assessee, including non supplying of the order by her authorised representative and the long spell of illness in the family, constitute a just and sufficient cause condonation of delay. admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5.1 Further, we find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed essentially on account of non the assessee to the notices issued. The assessee has now explained that the said non-compliance too arose due to illness in the family and her lack of knowledge of the pending proceedings, exacerbated by the failure of her consultant to keep her informed. In our view, the assessee has demonstrated a reasonable cause for such non compliance. Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 ely believed that her matter was being duly pursued by her consultant. The delay, therefore, was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occasioned due to circumstances beyond her control Having considered the contents of the affidavit and the ion tendered therein, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. It is well settled that liberal construction must be accorded to applications seeking condonation of delay, particularly when substantive rights are involved and the explanation offered is na fide and not lacking in diligence. In the present case, the circumstances narrated by the assessee, including non supplying of the order by her authorised representative and the long spell of illness in the family, constitute a just and sufficient cause condonation of delay. Therefore, we condoned the appeal for adjudication. e find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed essentially on account of non-compliance on the part of notices issued. The assessee has now explained compliance too arose due to illness in the family and her lack of knowledge of the pending proceedings, exacerbated by the failure of her consultant to keep her informed. In our view, essee has demonstrated a reasonable cause for such non Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 6 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 ely believed that her matter was being duly pursued by her consultant. The delay, therefore, was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occasioned due to circumstances beyond her control. Having considered the contents of the affidavit and the ion tendered therein, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. It is well settled that liberal construction must be accorded to applications seeking condonation of delay, particularly when substantive rights are involved and the explanation offered is na fide and not lacking in diligence. In the present case, the circumstances narrated by the assessee, including non supplying of the order by her authorised representative and the long spell of illness in the family, constitute a just and sufficient cause for the delay and e find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was compliance on the part of notices issued. The assessee has now explained compliance too arose due to illness in the family and her lack of knowledge of the pending proceedings, exacerbated by the failure of her consultant to keep her informed. In our view, essee has demonstrated a reasonable cause for such non- Printed from counselvise.com 5.2 We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merits and the order merely upholds the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any representation. I interest of justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5.3 In view of the above, Ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is allowed. Since the matter is being restored for fresh adjudication, Grounds No. 2 and 3, which pertain to the merits of the addition, are rendered academic at this stage and are not being adjudicated. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merits and the order merely upholds the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any representation. I interest of justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. above, Ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is allowed. Since the matter is being restored for fresh adjudication, Grounds No. 2 and 3, which pertain to the merits of the addition, are rendered academic at this stage and are not being adjudicated. esult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/ RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 7 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merits and the order merely upholds the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any representation. In the interest of justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of above, Ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is allowed. Since the matter is being restored for fresh adjudication, Grounds No. 2 and 3, which pertain to the merits of the addition, are rendered academic at this stage and are not being adjudicated. esult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari 8 ITA No. 2551/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "
Other Referred Cases
Bhattachargee v. State of Orissa [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)]
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Co-Founder Separation Agreement
₹0
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026