RONIE PARAS PORWAL ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF LATE PARAS PORWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL 8(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3179/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 August 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to ascertain the status of both appeals and dispose of them together after providing an opportunity of being heard to both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee inadvertently filed two appeals against the same assessment order before the CIT(A). The impugned order was passed ex parte, and another appeal on the same assessment order was pending.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid, and whether the appeals should be adjudicated together on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 10(38),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, Shri Mahesh Londhe
Hearing: 06/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 3179/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Ronie Paras Porwal National Faceless Appeal Centre Administration of Estate of (NFAC)/ DCIT Central 8(4), Room Late Paras Porwal, 4102, Vs. No.659, Aayakar Bhawan, Anchor Victorian Street, Parel, Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400012. 400020, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAABE 1886 G Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punamiya. : Shri Mahesh Londhe. Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 06/08/2026 : 10/08/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21/10/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, the learned CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of case and law the Ld AO erred in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act which is passed against the principal of natural justice.

Ronie Paras Porwal Administration 2 of Estate of Late Paras Porwal ITA No. 3179/MUM/2026

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs.1,38,19,606/- as bogus LTCG, disregarding that the shares were purchased through banking channels, held in a Demat account, and sold on a recognized stock exchange (BSE) through a registered broker, Securities Transactlon Tax (STT) was paid on the sale, fulfilling the conditions for exemption u/s 10(38) The transactions were supported by documentary evidence (contract notes, Demat statements, bank entries) 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Offlcer (AO) relied solely on General investigations by the Directorate of Investigation without specific evidence linking the Appellant to any manipulation. Statements of third parties without allowing crossexamination, violating principles of natural justice. 4. The CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,38,19,606/- under section 68 as unexplained cash credits, despite the appellant having discharged the burden of proof as per law, and without pointing out any defect in the evidences submitted.”

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, inadvertently, two separate appeals came to be filed before the learned CIT(A) against the very same assessment order—one in physical mode and the other electronically. It was submitted that the appeal filed in physical mode is still pending before the learned CIT(A). As regards the present appeal, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex parte, without adjudicating the assessee's case on merits. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the learned CIT(A), with a direction to consider and dispose of both appeals arising from the same assessment order together.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative did not dispute the factual position that two appeals had been filed by the assessee

Ronie Paras Porwal Administration 3 of Estate of Late Paras Porwal ITA No. 3179/MUM/2026

against the same assessment order and that the other appeal is stated to be pending before the learned CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that, owing to an inadvertent duplication, two appeals came to be filed before the learned CIT(A) against the same assessment order, one in physical mode and the other in electronic mode. The existence of two appeals arising from the same assessment order necessarily requires the appellate proceedings to be brought to a common and orderly conclusion, lest the same assessment order be subjected to parallel adjudication or inconsistent findings.

5.

We further find that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) has been passed ex parte. In these circumstances, and particularly when another appeal arising from the very same assessment order is stated to be pending before the learned CIT(A), we consider it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A).

6.

The learned CIT(A) shall first ascertain the status and record of both appeals arising from the same assessment order and thereafter dispose of them together, in a consolidated manner, in accordance with law. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and the

Ronie Paras Porwal Administration 4 of Estate of Late Paras Porwal ITA No. 3179/MUM/2026

Revenue shall also be afforded due opportunity before the appeals are adjudicated. The learned CIT(A) shall decide the issues afresh on their merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order.

7.

Since the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, including the addition of Rs.1,38,19,606/- under section 68 and the consequential claim relating to exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. All such issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 10/08/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Ronie Paras Porwal Administration 5 of Estate of Late Paras Porwal ITA No. 3179/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →