AFZAL MUSTUFA ANSARI,BYCULLA vs. ITO, WARD 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) Ground No. 1 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO Ward, 20(1)(1), Mumbai has erred in passing the order u/s. 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 2) Ground No. 2 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law in so far as there was no fresh tangible material available with the Ld. Assessing Officer and that the assessment has been reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. 3) Ground No. 3 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appeal of the assessee before the CIT (A) may please be restored back and the non-compliance of the assessee in respect of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT (A) may please be excused as it was for the genuine reasons. 4) Ground No. 4 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing freight expenses under section 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs 46,32,240.

At the outset, we refer to ground no. 3 raised by the assessee as noted above, whereby assessee seeks restoration of the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) on account of non-compliance by him for the notices issued at the first appellate stage. Assessee has furnished a notarized affidavit, dated 15.05.2026 explaining the reasons for non-compliances to the notices issued for hearings fixed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Contents of the same are extracted below for ready reference: “1. That the order under section 250 of the Act has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) /NFAC on 09-12-2025. 2. That I could not make timely compliances to the notices of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

From the perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is noted that assessee did not furnish any submissions nor sought any adjournments for the statutory notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer on several occasions u/s. 142(1). A partial submission was made in response to one of the show cause notices whereby assessee filed a purchase agreement for the flat showing consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- and certificate of importer/exporter.

In the given set of facts and considering the submissions made by the assessee through his affidavit explaining the reasons for non- compliance at the first appellate stage, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by him. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all his submissions, so as to comply with the notices for hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the first appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced in the open court on 04 August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 04 August, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,