DARSHIT BHARAT HARIA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4388/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to re-examine the appeal after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to present their case effectively before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee sought a final opportunity to present their submissions and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the ex-parte order and if a final opportunity should be granted to present their case before the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.08.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No. 4388/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Darshit Bharat Haria Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(1), B/903, Tower NO.3, Vikas Mumbai Paradise, LBS Road, Mulund Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C41-43, G Block (West), Mumbai-400080 BKC, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 PAN: AIDPH0573Q Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Shashank Mehta : Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR. Revenue by : 18.08.2026 Date of Hearing : 21.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, ADDL/JCIT (A) – 3, Bengaluru [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 03.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, arises from the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 30.12.2017, passed by Income Tax Officer – 29(1)(3), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. AO”].

ITA No. 4388/Mum/2026 Darshit Bharat Haria 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)- 3, Bengaluru has erred in violating the principles of natural justice by passing an ex- parte order under section 250 of the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru has erred in upholding the action of the Ld.Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without any independent application of mind thereon. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru has erred in upholding the action of the Ld.Assessing Officer of completing the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147, without providing the material or information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the transaction of the sale of shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. as bogus and sham and has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,08,793/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned. ADDL/JCIT(A)- 3, Bengaluru has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of not granting the exemption of long terms capital gainunder section 10(38) of the Act on sale of listed equity shares sold through recognize stock exchange which has duly been subjected to security transaction tax (S.T.T.) on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru has erred in confirming addition in respect ofcommission of Rs. 1,47,264/- estimated at 3 per cent of Rs. 49,08,793/-, as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not furnish the necessary evidence, submissions and explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). It was, accordingly, submitted that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the

ITA No. 4388/Mum/2026 Darshit Bharat Haria Ld. CIT(A), with an undertaking that the assessee shall duly comply with the proceedings and furnish all necessary submissions, explanations and supporting evidence so as to facilitate proper adjudication of the appeal by the first appellate authority.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR representing the Revenue submitted that the assessee had remained non-compliant on as many as eight occasions when notices under section 250 of the Act were issued. It was further submitted that the assessee had sought adjournments on several occasions but had failed to comply with the notices or furnish the requisite submissions. The Ld. DR contended that, in the absence of any genuine and sufficient cause for such repeated non-compliance, the assessee do not deserve to be granted yet another opportunity, however, the matter if deemed necessary may be set aside for fresh adjudication to Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

6.

It is an admitted position that the assessee did not effectively represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A), despite the matter having been fixed for hearing on eight occasions. The assessee also failed to furnish the requisite submissions and supporting material before the first appellate authority. In the circumstances prevailing before the Ld. CIT(A), the appellate authority

ITA No. 4388/Mum/2026 Darshit Bharat Haria proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the material available on record.

7.

Before us, however, the assessee has sought one further opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A), with an admission / undertaking to furnish the requisite submissions, explanations and supporting evidence and to address the issues arising from the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

8.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues involved, we consider it appropriate to afford the assessee one final opportunity to effectively represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall accordingly appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish all submissions, explanations and supporting evidence on which it seeks to rely, and shall duly comply with the proceedings.

9.

The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter examine and adjudicate the issues arising in the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after affording the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall not seek any further adjournment except for compelling and sufficient reasons. The observations made herein are confined to the issue of opportunity and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions/disallowances in question. 4

ITA No. 4388/Mum/2026 Darshit Bharat Haria

10.

In result the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court 21-08-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 21-08-2026. Ankit K., Sr. 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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →