PURVI MANISH VORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27 (2) (1), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5002/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 July 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an assessment order was dismissed by the CIT(A) without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment order involved an addition of Rs. 23,50,000 for alleged unexplained investment in jointly purchased flats.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLENARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Ld
Pronounced: 15.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the ASSESSEE against the order dated 25.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16.

ITA 5002/Mum/2026; Purvi Manish Vora

2.

Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the Assessee's appeal challenging the assessment order dated 28.02.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, whereby an addition of 23,50,000/- was made under section 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained investment representing 50% share in jointly purchased flats, without affording any effective opportunity of hearing, we for the just and proper decision of the case and in the interest of justice, deem it appropriate, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner.

3.

Thus, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh suffice to say after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

4.

The Assessee is also directed to file all relevant documents necessary for adjudication. We clarify that in the event of any default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any further leniency.

ITA 5002/Mum/2026; Purvi Manish Vora

5.

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY MAHADEOKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Soumili Das) Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. 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 →