RUSHABH REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-13(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5317/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rushabh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was that the appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated by a previous order, and thus, the subsequent order was a second disposal of the same appeal, rendering it legally unsustainable. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representation and proceeded to hear the case ex parte. The Departmental Representative argued that the subsequent order constituted a second disposal of the same appeal, which was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal found merit in this contention and decided to verify the status of the previous adjudication before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823151 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2025
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAN KASURI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5317/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rushabh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., D 304, Shri Siddhi Vinayak, Tower Off Tank Road, Malad West Dely S.O. Mumbai-400064. Vs. ITO Ward-13(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AACCR 3281 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2013-14, raising following ground: 1. On the facts and circumstances the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing A separate appellate order dated 12.06.2025, despite the fact the said appeal had already been adjudicated and disposed of by the CIT(A)-21, Mumbai vide its order dated Printed from counselvise.com 28.02.2019. The impugned order passed thereafter suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed. 2. At the outset, we note that the notice issued to the assessee was returned by the postal authorities with the rem left”. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was therefore heard ex parte qua the assessee, aft learned Departmental Representative. 3. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the principal contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that the appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income vide order dated 10.06.2015, and that the subsequent order passed by the learned CIT(A) second disposal of the same appeal, thereby rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 4. We find that the issue raised goes to the very root of the matter and is essentially one of factual verification, namely, whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order had already been disposed of by prior to the passing of the impugned order. Such verification can only be appropriately undertaken by the learned CIT(A) upon examination of the appellate records. Rushabh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 28.02.2019. The impugned order passed thereafter suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed. At the outset, we note that the notice issued to the assessee was returned by the postal authorities with the rem left”. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was therefore heard ex parte qua the assessee, aft learned Departmental Representative. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the principal contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that the appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income vide order dated 10.06.2015, and that the subsequent order passed by the learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai on 28.02.2019 amounts to a second disposal of the same appeal, thereby rendering the order legally unsustainable. We find that the issue raised goes to the very root of the matter and is essentially one of factual verification, namely, whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order had already been disposed of by the first appellate authority prior to the passing of the impugned order. Such verification can only be appropriately undertaken by the learned CIT(A) upon examination of the appellate records. Rushabh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 5317/MUM/2025 28.02.2019. The impugned order passed thereafter suffers from At the outset, we note that the notice issued to the assessee was returned by the postal authorities with the remark “addressee left”. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was therefore heard ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the principal contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that the appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated 10.06.2015, and that the subsequent order passed 21, Mumbai on 28.02.2019 amounts to a second disposal of the same appeal, thereby rendering the We find that the issue raised goes to the very root of the matter and is essentially one of factual verification, namely, whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment the first appellate authority prior to the passing of the impugned order. Such verification can only be appropriately undertaken by the learned CIT(A) upon Printed from counselvise.com 5. In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the imp order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated. If it is found that the appeal stood disposed of earlier, the treat the subsequent appellate proceedings as infructuous and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/12/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Rushabh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the imp order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated. If it is found that the appeal stood disposed of earlier, the learned CIT(A) shall treat the subsequent appellate proceedings as infructuous and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for atistical purposes. ounced in the open Court on 23/12/2025. Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Rushabh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 5317/MUM/2025 In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated. If it is found learned CIT(A) shall treat the subsequent appellate proceedings as infructuous and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting due In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /12/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "