MITASHI EDUTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI., MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the grounds raised were not previously adjudicated by revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to raise these grounds.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed four appeals challenging orders passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues in all appeals were common, and the assessment years ranged from 2014-15 to 2017-18.
What were the issues?
Whether the Tribunal can allow the assessee to raise new grounds not previously adjudicated by revenue authorities, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal713 citing469 ITR 46 · 2024 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2025 ORDER Per Bench.:
These four appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders 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 2014-15 to 2017-18.
Since all the issues involved in these four appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for 2 Mitashi Edutainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take A.Y 2017-18 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without requisite permission u/s 151 of the Act. In this regard relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Ashish Agarwal, civil appeal No. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022. It was further argued by Ld. AR that the noticed issued is without containing DIN and was not issued by faceless AO.
On the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kela Vs. ITO Special Civil Application No. 6387/5688/996 of 2023 and 22260 of 2022 and requested for dismissal of assessee appeal.
After having heard the arguments for both the parties, we found that these grounds were not taken by the assessee before the revenue authorities. Although a general plea / ground has been taken by the assessee thereby challenging the reopening of the case, but no such specific plea or ground was even taken by the assessee therefore there was no occasion before the revenue authorities to adjudicate the same.
3 Mitashi Edutainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai.
In our view, although legal plea / ground can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, therefore we allow the assessee to raise the same in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC. Ltd [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). Since certain factual verifications from the assessment records are required to adjudicate legal grounds raised by the assessee before us. Therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate these grounds on merits and Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to call for the assessment record or any other information from the A.O for proper adjudication. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes , 629 & 630/Mum/2025, 2014-15 to 2016-17
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2017-18 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in 4 Mitashi Edutainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2025
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026