FAHAD WAGHOO,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 296/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fahad Waghoo, 1201 Platinum Venecea, Sector 29, Nerul, Nerual Node-III, S.O. Navi Mumbai, Thane – 400706 ……………. Appellant PAN : ABDPW6861D v/s

Income Tax Officer, Ward – 28(1)(1), 3rd & 4th Floor, 6th Tower, Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai - 400703

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, SR. DR

Date of Hearing – 21/04/2026 Date of Order – 11/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13/11/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year, for the assessment year 2019-20.

2 ITA No.296/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20)

without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the assessment without passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions merely on the alleged non-prosecution of appeal, without independently examining the assessment records, evidences already on record, and submissions made before the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 21,61,06,800/- made under section 69A on account of cash deposits, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had failed to establish that the said amounts represented unexplained money of the appellant. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 27,00,00,000/- as income from capital gains, without appreciating that the amount represented advance received towards proposed sale of immovable property and without examining the Memorandum of Understanding already on record. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining. the addition of 229,09,300/- under section 69A on account of sale of motor vehicle, without appreciating that only capital gains, if any, could be brought to tax and not the entire sale consideration. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 731,85,496/- under section 69A on account of foreign remittances, without examining the nature, source, and banking trail of the transactions. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 76,07,170/-on account of alleged difference between income declared in revised return and return filed under section 148, without appreciating that the same does not constitute independent taxable income. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in mechanically affirming the action of the Assessing Officer without addressing the specific grounds raised by the appellant in Form No. 35. 10.The learned CIT(A) erred in law in relying solely on alleged non-compliance and adjournments, without granting a final effective opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the appellate order unsustainable.”

3 ITA No.296/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20)

CIT(A) merely on the basis of non-compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits. As the appeal is restored to the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the hearing dates as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

- Sd/- Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 11/05/2026 Prabhat

4 ITA No.296/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20)

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai