ZODIAC CLOTHING COMPANY LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ZODIAC FINSEC AND HOLDINGS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 2853 & 2854/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2018-19

Zodiac Clothing Company Deputy Commissioner of Limited (Successor to Income-Tax, Circle 8(3)(1), Vs. Zodiac Finsec and Holdings Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai, Limited) Maharashtra- 400020 254 D-2 Nyloc House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Colony, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400030 PAN NO. AAACZ0151A Appellant Respondent

: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv. Assessee by : Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi- SR DR Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 09/07/2026 Date of pronouncement : 13/07/2026 ORDER u/s 254(1) of Income-Tax Act, 1961 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 07.01.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Zodiac Clothing Company 2 ITA No. 2853 & 2854/MUM/2026

Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"], pertaining to Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2018-19. 2. At the threshold, it is noticed that a common grievance has been raised in both the appeals, namely, that the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeals ex-parte by declining the assessee's request for adjournment and without considering the submissions which the assessee intended to place on record. Since the issue involved is identical in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The impugned orders reveal that, in Assessment Year 2010-11, the adjournment sought by the assessee in response to the notice dated 14.01.2026 was declined by the Ld. CIT(A). Likewise, for Assessment Year 2018-19, the adjournment sought in response to the notice dated 15.01.2026 also came to be rejected. Consequently, both the appeals were disposed of ex-parte. 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from effectively presenting its case before the first appellate authority and prayed that the matters be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh

Zodiac Clothing Company 3 ITA No. 2853 & 2854/MUM/2026

adjudication. The learned Departmental Representative did not seriously oppose the request for restoration. 5. It is a settled principle that an appellate authority, while discharging quasi-judicial functions, is under a statutory obligation to afford a fair and effective opportunity of hearing before adjudicating the rights of a litigant. The rule of audi alteram partem, which constitutes one of the foundational principles of natural justice, mandates that no person should be condemned unheard. The object of adjudication is not merely to conclude proceedings but to ensure that justice is both done and manifestly seen to have been done. 6. In the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee had sought adjournment of the hearings, which came to be declined, resulting in disposal of the appeals without consideration of the assessee's submissions. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions or the issues involved, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by restoring both the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, and the matters are remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard and after duly considering such material and submissions as may be placed on record. The assessee

Zodiac Clothing Company 4 ITA No. 2853 & 2854/MUM/2026

is also directed to extend full cooperation and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments so that the appeals may be disposed of expeditiously. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/07/2026 Dragon Legal/ Z.U., P.S.

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