SALIM ABDUL SATTAR ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 1100/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Salim Abdul Sattar Advani, Income Tax Officer, Ward Shop No.2, Merchant Building, 41(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, 1Shakli Street, Biculla, Vs. Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. Mumbai – 400008, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AFTPA 1899 M Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Hiren Vepari (Virtually Present) Revenue by : Ms. Jatyshree Thakur (SR. DR)

: 29/06/2026 Date of Hearing : 30/06/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the learned CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Year 2017- 18, whereby the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Salim Abdul Sattar Advani, 2 ITA No. 1100/MUM/2026

“Ex-Parte: (1) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in passing ex-parte order when the appellant was on the brink of submitting the response. (2) The appellant deserves an opportunity of being heard, which is a corner stone to the natural justice. (II) Reopening: The reopening having been made without satisfying valid conditions, reopening is bad in law. (III) Addition of Rs.38,25,333: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant having explained the source, there was no merit in confirming addition. (2) With the confirmations filed of the lenders being mother and son of the appellant, and the AO having failed to make independent inquiry, the addition is required to be deleted. (3) Invoking of inapplicable section 69 is unwarranted (IV) Miscellaneous: (5) All the above grounds and sub-grounds are prejudiced to one another.” 2. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative fairly submitted that the impugned appellate order came to be passed ex parte. It was candidly admitted that although three notices of hearing were issued by the learned CIT(A), the assessee could effectively respond only to one of the notices by seeking an adjournment, which came to be declined. The remaining notices also remained uncomplied with owing to the circumstances explained by the learned Authorised Representative.The learned Authorised Representative, however, submitted that the assessee is in possession of all relevant documentary evidence necessary for

Salim Abdul Sattar Advani, 3 ITA No. 1100/MUM/2026

proper adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal and expressed the assessee's readiness to produce the same before the learned CIT(A), if one final opportunity is granted. It was, therefore, prayed that, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits.

2.1 The learned Departmental Representative, though supporting the impugned order, fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

3.1 Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and balancing the requirement of procedural fairness with the need for expeditious adjudication, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served if one

Salim Abdul Sattar Advani, 4 ITA No. 1100/MUM/2026

final opportunity is granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

3.2 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions or the legal grounds raised in the present appeal, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal de novo, in accordance with law, after affording the assessee an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and after considering such documentary evidence and submissions as may be produced before him.The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is made clear that failure on the part of the assessee to diligently prosecute the appeal shall entitle the learned CIT(A) to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record.

3.3 Since we have restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, all the grounds raised by the assessee, including the grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the additions on merits, are kept open to be urged before the learned CIT(A), who shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order.

Salim Abdul Sattar Advani, 5 ITA No. 1100/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

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

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai