VAISHALI KETAN GANDHI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1392/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vaishali Ketan Gandhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 5(4) 4th Floor, Cabin No.422, Kautilya 121-B, 7-Dwarka Bldg, Park Road, Near Shivsena Office, Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai- 400051 Parle East, Mumbai-400057 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AIYPG9951E Assessee by Shri Saurabh Bhatt Department by Shri Amit Gurav-SR. DR Date of Hearing 20.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2026

ORDER Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi ["CIT(A)"] for Assessment Year 2022-23, arising out of the assessment proceedings framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.07.2022 declaring total income of ₹2,42,240/-. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings made additions u/s 68 and u/s 69C and assessed the total income at Rs.63,14,690/-.

ITA No.1392/M/2026 Vaishali Ketan Gandhi 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices; however, there was no compliance from the assessee. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte and requested that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the assessee was negligent in not responding to multiple notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was therefore pleaded that no further opportunity should be granted and the order of the lower authorities be sustained. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices which remained uncomplied with and the conduct of the assessee does reflect lack of due diligence. However, we also note that the appeal has been disposed of ex parte without examining the issue on merits. 7. In the interest of substantial justice and in consonance with the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. At the same time, considering the repeated non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), we find it fit to impose cost so as to ensure diligent participation in the proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is 2

ITA No.1392/M/2026 Vaishali Ketan Gandhi restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit cost of ₹11,000/- under the head “Other Receipts” of the Income Tax Department within fifteen days from this order. 9. The assessee is directed to promptly comply with all notices and file the requisite submissions/documents without any default. It is made clear that any further non-compliance may result in adjudication based on the material available on record. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 23/06/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.1392/M/2026 Vaishali Ketan Gandhi

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T.

By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai