TUSHAR SURYAKANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2622/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee sought to pursue the appeal on merits, highlighting a similar addition made in his brother's case and requesting a fresh opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming an addition without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Whether the addition was a double addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, CA
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19/01/2026, 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 2016-17.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

2 ITA No.2622/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2016-17)

“The appellant objects to the order dated 19 January 2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act by the NFAC (CIT(A)) for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by passing an ex-parte order. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of IN 1,23,90,049 in respect of cash deposit in Bank account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi State Urban Credit Co-Op. Society as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income tax Act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to delete the said addition as the appellant was a joint account holder in the above bank account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi State Urban Credit Co-Op. Society along with his brother Mr. Nikhil Shah and a similar addition has already been made in the case of appellant's brother Mr. Nikhil Shah. The addition so made is a double addition of INR 1,23,90,049.”

3.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non- compliance of the notices of hearing by the assessee. Now in the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. Further, the learned AR also undertook that if the appeal is restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee shall comply with all notices as may be issued. It was further submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee’s brother, involving a similar addition, is also pending before the learned CIT(A).

4.

Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the

3 ITA No.2622/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2016-17)

file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update his email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing 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.

5.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22/05/2026 Prabhat 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

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →