SALAHUDDIN NIHALUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Salahuddin
Nihaluddin
Shaikh
A 102,
Milap
Apartment,
Shrikant Daude Marg, Naya
Nagar, Mira Road East, Thane
– 401 107, Maharashtra v/s.
बनाम
Income Tax Officer
Ashar IT Park, 6th Floor,
Road
No.
16Z,
Wagle
Industrial
Estate,
Thane
West
–
400
604,
Maharashtra
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: EYBPS2607Q
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
Appellant by :
Shri Jigar Mehta, CA
Respondent by :
Shri Swapnil Choudhary (Sr. AR)
Date of Hearing
10.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
21.11.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated
10.07.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 20.02.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2015-16
Salahuddin Nihaluddin Shaikh
The grounds of appeal are as under:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire addition of Rs. 1,84,51,000/- made by the Ld.AO, being advance received by the appellant, considering the same as income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire addition of Rs.1,84,51,000/- made by the Ld. AO, being advance received by the appellant, considering the same as Short Term Capital Gains. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and the return of income for the year under consideration was not filed by him. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act due to the fact that he sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,84,51,000/-during the year which remained unexplained and ought to have been charged to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer vide dated 31.03.2022. In response to the same, no return of income was filed by him. 4. During reassessment proceedings, various notices along with questionnaire and show-cause were issued to him on various dates which remained to be complied leading to completion of assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.1,84,51,000/- under the head ‘short-term capital gain’ to the total income. Aggrieved, he filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) contesting the impugned assessment and the addition made. However, the assessee did not respond to appeal notices as well.
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2015-16
Salahuddin Nihaluddin Shaikh
Consequently, the appeal filed by him was dismissed on account of non prosecution.
5. Before us, the ld.AR made a request to condone the same and remand the matter back to the lower authorities. The ld.DR however, objected to this proposition stating that the assessee was a habitual defaulter in this regard as the assessment order was also passed in ex parte manner due to his non compliance.
6. We observe that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. He could not adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the materials available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits after considering the material on record, even if the appellant fails to appear.
However, it is equally important that it is a fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. The failure of the assessee to take any initiative reflects gross negligence and an indifference which is unacceptable, particularly when the appeal involves significant additions and disallowances. It is pertinent to note
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2015-16
Salahuddin Nihaluddin Shaikh that the principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference which delayed the assessment and appellate proceedings. Taxpayers are expected to act responsibly, especially when significant sums and complex issues are under dispute.
6.1 In light of the above, levy of cost would be fully justified. The cost serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing the proceedings and adhering to the timelines and processes laid down under the law. It also emphasizes the principle that while justice must be ensured, the system cannot cater to indolence or negligence on the part of the assessee.
7. In view of the above, following the principles of natural justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the AO. He is directed to make de novo assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who, in turn, would ensure due compliance.
P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2015-16
Salahuddin Nihaluddin Shaikh
1 Considering the assessee’s lack of diligence in pursuing the assessment and also appeal and his failure to take timely measures respecting timelines laid down in the Act, we impose a cost of Rs.15,000/- on the assessee. The cost shall be deposited to the credit of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 15 days of the receipt of this order and proof of payment shall be submitted before the ld.AO. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/11/2025. [Justice (Retd. ) C.V.BHADANG] [PRABHASH SHANKAR] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
ददनाुंक /Date 21.11.2025
Lubhna Shaikh / Steno
आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
P a g e | 6
A.Y. 2015-16
Salahuddin Nihaluddin Shaikh
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.