RUSHABH REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-13(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY () Assessment Year: 2013-14
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
02.2019. T legal infirmity 2. At the outset, w was returned by the left”. In these circ representation on be assessee was not int was therefore heard learned Departmenta 3. The learned De principal contention is that the appeal ag adjudicated by the l vide order dated 10.0 by the learned CIT(A second disposal of impugned order legal 4. We find that th matter and is esse whether the appeal order had already be prior to the passing only be appropriate examination of the ap Rushabh Real E
The impugned order passed thereafter s y and deserves to be quashed.
we note that the notice issued postal authorities with the rem cumstances, and in the ab ehalf of the assessee, we are sa terested in prosecuting the app ex parte qua the assessee, af al Representative.
epartmental Representative sub raised by the assessee in the gr gainst the assessment order ha learned Commissioner of Incom
06.2015, and that the subseque
A)-21, Mumbai on 28.02.2019
f the same appeal, thereby lly unsustainable.
he issue raised goes to the v entially one of factual verific filed by the assessee against een disposed of by the first app of the impugned order. Such ely undertaken by the learne ppellate records.
Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
2
suffers from to the assessee mark “addressee bsence of any atisfied that the peal. The appeal fter hearing the bmitted that the rounds of appeal ad already been me-tax (Appeals) ent order passed
9 amounts to a rendering the very root of the cation, namely, the assessment pellate authority verification can ed CIT(A) upon 5. In the interest o order and restore the limited purpose of ve the assessment orde that the appeal stoo treat the subsequent appropriate orders opportunity of being
6. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 23/12/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Rushabh Real E of justice, we therefore set asid e matter to the file of the learne erifying whether the assessee’s er had already been adjudicate od disposed of earlier, the learn appellate proceedings as infruc in accordance with law after heard to the assessee.
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 23/ AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
3
de the impugned ed CIT(A) for the s appeal against d. If it is found ned CIT(A) shall ctuous and pass r granting due is allowed for 12/2025. /-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai