JITEN KISHORE AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2014-15
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT (in short Ld.
Commissioner) u/s 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In the instant case, despite of affording various opportunities in the appellate proceedings initiated against the assessment order dated 11.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereby the Assessing
Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs.22,34,538/- being unexplained investment in jewellery, the Assessee made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Therefore, the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency.
Mr. Jiten Kishore Ajmera
(Legal Heir of Late Shri Kishore H. Ajmera)
2
3. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as demonstrated by the Assessee that there were multiple appeals showing to have been filed in the CBDT portal relevant to assessment year under consideration and therefore due to inadvertent mistake or miscommunication or overlooking of the facts, the Assessee remained unattended or un-complied with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and even otherwise the impugned order is an ex-parte, whereby the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine but not on merit, thus, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice as the Ld.
Commissioner has the bounden duty to decide the appeal on merit even in the absence of the Assessee and/or non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
25.04.2026 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom) 614 , as under:
“That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues, which arise from the impugned order before him, whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower
CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, as it is evident from the provisions of the Act”.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents, as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. Mr. Jiten Kishore Ajmera (Legal Heir of Late Shri Kishore H. Ajmera)
3
5. In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.