ROSHNI PRAKASH JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

PERSANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 respectfully passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take
ITA No.5635/Mum/2025, A.Y 2011-12as lead case and facts narrated therein.
Roshni Prakash Jain, Mumbai.

ITA No. 5635/Mum/2025, A.Y 2011-12
3. From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) and also before AO. However, Ld. AR explained the circumstances, because of which the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the AO and Ld.
CIT(A), therefore after considering the submissions of both parties, I am of the view that the cause of substantial justice would be met only in case the matter is restored back to file of AO for deciding the same afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties. Subject to cost of Rs.
5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, the matter is restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
4. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Roshni Prakash Jain, Mumbai.

ITA No.5636/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13
6. As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to ITA No. 5636/Mum/2024 for the A.Y 2011-12
(except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2025 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Mumbai:

Dated: 12/11/2025

KRK, Sr. PS.
Roshni Prakash Jain, Mumbai.

Copy of the order forwarded to:

(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order

(Asstt.