RUSHABH PANKAJ SAVLA,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CC, 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2893/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rushabh Pankaj Savla against an ex-parte order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 for the assessment year 2022-23. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits, despite the assessee's request for adjournment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that substantial rights of the assessee were involved and thus warranted a fresh opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A). The tribunal noted the assessee's casual approach in not complying with procedural requirements on three occasions but still decided to restore the appeal for a comprehensive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668990 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMA SHANKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINTANSHAH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2893/MUM/2025 (AY : 2022-23) (Physical hearing) Rushabh Pankaj Savla 322-323, SwastikDisa Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. [PAN No. BZHPS0731D] Vs DCIT, CC-5(2), KautilyaBhawan,BandraKurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Sh. Chintan Shah CA Revenue by Sh. Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of hearing 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order ex-parte order of ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) has passed the order of ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 02.06.2023. Notice of hearing of appeal was issued on 13.01.2025 for filing submission on or before 28.01.2025. The ld. CIT(A) issued back to back four notices to the assessee within one months. The last notice under section 250 was issued on 19.02.2025 for making submission by 25.02.2025. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee sought adjournment, however, the ld. CIT(A) instead considering the request of adjournment dismissed the appeal in ex- ITA No. 2893/Mum/2025 Rushabh Pankaj Savla 2 parte order. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is really interested in pursuing his appeal on merit and he undertake on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future and making timely compliance. The assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to contest the case before ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR also filed copy of screen shot of ITBA portal showing the request of adjournment in response to notice dated 19.02.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR for the revenue submits that assessee was allowed more than reasonable opportunity as recorded in para 1 of the impugned order. The assessee has not made any compliance. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order on the basis of material available on record. The assessee does not deserve any further opportunity on any ground. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We find that assessment order was completed under section 143(3) on 15.05.2023. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 71.00 lacs on account of unaccounted income. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 02.06.2023. The ld. CIT(A) fixed the hearing on various dates. The last date of hearing was fixed by notice dated 19.02.2025 to make compliance by 25.02.2025. In response to 19.02.2025, the assessee filed application for adjournment. However, neither the ld. CIT(A) recorded such request in his order nor allowed further adjournment and dismissed the appeal on the basis of material available on record. We find that ld. AR of the assessee has not ITA No. 2893/Mum/2025 Rushabh Pankaj Savla 3 explained the reason of non-compliance on 28.01.2025, 11.02.2025 and 19.02.2025. No doubt, the assessee made request of adjournment but only on 19.02.2025. In our view, substantial rights of assessee are involved in the present appeal. Therefore, assessee deserve one more opportunity to explain his fact before First Appellate Authority. At the same time, we find that approach of assessee was casual in not making compliance on three other occasions, therefore, the assessee is burden with the cost of 1,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Aid and Advice Committee/Board. Original of the receipt be placed on the record of the file. With this direction, this appeal is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating all the grounds of appeal afresh. 5. In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 25/06/2025. Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:/06/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "