ADVAITA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,KANDIVALI(WEST) vs. WARD 12(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.9450/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Beam Infra Solutions Private DCIT, Central Circle – 6(4), Limited, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla 708 Gateway Plaza CHS, A S Complex, Mumbai Marg, Hiranandani Gardens, Vs. Maharashtra- 400021 Powai, Mumbai Maharashtra- 400051 PAN: AAHCB2013N Assessee- अपीलार्थी / Appellant Revenue -प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Gajendra Suthar Revenue by : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati – SR. DR. : 20.04.2026 Date of Hearing : 29.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: 1. This appeal is instituted by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 11.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2023-24, arises from assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.12.2024 passed by DCIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai. Grounds of appeal are as under: i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the order of assessment passed by the Ld. Assessing

ITA No. 9450/Mum/2025 Beam Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same is clearly outside the sanction of law, illegal, unjust, invalid, bad-in- law, unsustainable, unwarranted and therefore liable to be quashed. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the order of assessment passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs 1,81,048/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of brought forward loss being Rs 70,425/-pertaining to AY 2019-20 and Rs 1,10,623/- pertaining to AY 2020-21.

ITA No. 9450/Mum/2025 Beam Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. earlier assessment years were not filed within prescribed due dates, therefore, the claim of assessee regarding carry forward loss cannot be allowed as per the provisions of the Act. A query was raised to the assessee; however, the assessee has not furnished any response, therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1,81,048/- by denial of claim of carry forward loss was made. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid adjustment/disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, wherein to decide about the entitlement of assessee for claiming carry forward loss return of income for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 were observed to be filed beyond their respective due dates. The assessee was granted opportunities to respond/clarify/furnish submissions in this regard, but the assessee did not respond. In absence of any documentary evidence, the appeal of assessee was dismissed. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before Tribunal which is under consideration in the present matter. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to some unavoidable reasons, the assessee was unable to represent its case before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before the AO. The assessee was not afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities of being heard, therefore, there was a violation of Principles of Natural Justice. It was 3

ITA No. 9450/Mum/2025 Beam Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. prayed that the matter be restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication, wherein the assessee admits to furnish necessary evidence for its entitlement of carry forward losses. 6. Per contra, Ld. Department Representative (DR) representing the revenue raised the objection towards the contention of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) and submitted to uphold the order of revenue authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. 8. In the present case, the sole controversy is regarding entitlement of the assessee to claim carry forward losses, which as per AO and Ld. CIT(A) was not available, as the assessee’s return for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 for which the losses are carry forward, are not filed within the stipulated time as per Section 139(1) of the Act. The Counsel of assessee request that the returns were filed in time and necessary evidence would be produced before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for assessee’s entitlement to carry forward the loss, therefore, the adjustment/disallowance made the impugned assessment under Section 143(3) shall not sustain. Further, in the interest of substantial justice, as the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is impugned before us, is an ex-parte order, we find it apposite to restore 4

ITA No. 9450/Mum/2025 Beam Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. this matter back to the file of JAO for verification of assessee’s return for earlier years and to allow or disallow the claim, in accordance with the mandate of law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to remain compliant towards the notices issued by the JAO, failing which the JAO would be at liberty to decide the issue in accordance with the mandate of law after verifying the fats on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29-04-2026. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 29-04-2026. Zu, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai