RUPALI RAVINDRA KABADI,SHAHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2376/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively represent their case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as the assessee remained ex parte before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and not considering explanations regarding property taxation and return submission.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's explanations regarding property taxation and non-submission of return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067879322(1) dated 28-Jan-2026 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the ex-parte order under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, passed by Hon'ble Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) is Invalid and bad in law. 1

2.

On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing an appeal filed by an Appellant.

3.

On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in not considering an explanation offered by an Appellant in regard to non-submission of return of income under section 148 online.

4.

On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble C.I.T. (A) was not justified In not considering an explanation of the Appellant that out of two landed properties dealt with, one property was Agricultural Land and hence sale consideration received against that property was not taxable as "Long term capital gain". For the another property, only a development agreement has been executed where the Stamp Duty Value is considered at Rs.2,33,06,500/-.

5.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble C.I.T.(A) was not justified in not considering claim of an appellant for allowing Indexed Cost of Purchase of the Properties while calculating taxable Long Term Capital Gain on sale of those properties."

6.

On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law the Hon'ble C.I.T. (A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 22,06,892/- made to the total income of an Appellant.

7.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time.

2.

From the records, I noticed that the assessee remained ex parte before both the Assessing Officer (AO) as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)]. Consequently, on the basis of the material available on record, the AO completed the assessment, and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

3.

Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to present his case before the AO.

4.

Accordingly, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to set aside the orders passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing the assessee with adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. This restoration shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt evidencing such deposit shall be placed on record before the AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5.

The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation during the remand proceedings and shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds.

6.

Before parting, it is made clear that the decision to restore the matter to the file of the AO shall not be construed as expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the controversy involved. The AO shall adjudicate the issues independently, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order, and strictly in accordance with law.

7.

Needless to mention, the AO shall provide the assessee with adequate and effective opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh order.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026.

Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 27.07.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: RUPALI RAVINDRA KABADI, AT KHATIVLI PO VASIND TAL 1 SHAHAPUR DIST THANE SHAHAPUR, THANE-421604, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) KALYAN, 2ND FLOOR, MOHAN PLAZA, WAYLE 2 NAGAR, KHADAKPADA KALYAN WEST, KALYAN-DOMBIVALI-421301, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →