CHANDRASINH BHARATSINH GOHIL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of costs.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals for two assessment years were dismissed by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing, as the assessee's consultant failed to appear. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 68,Section 69A,Section 271AAC,Section 271AAD(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 234F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K(SMC
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
These are 2 appeals preferred by the same Assessee for the Assessment Years and 2021-2022 and 2022-23. Since, the appeal involved identical issues, the same heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by the way of a common order.
ITA No.2215/MUM/2026 challenges the Order, dated 30.12.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) 53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 16/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with ITA Nos.2215 and 2216/Mum/2023 Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023
Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not providing an opportunity to present the case on merit and passing an ex parte order u/s 250 of the Act IT Act 1961 by confirming all the addition made by the Ld AO to the retuned income and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made thereunder.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,90,000/- made by the Ld AO to the returned income u/s 68 of the IT Act 1961 as unexplained by treating explained commission income earned as unexplained cash credit and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.513/- made by the Ld AO to the returned income by arbitrarily/wrongly holding that expenditure in the form of commission has been incurred/paid to avail commission income which has been given out of undisclosed sources without assigning any valid reason and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAD(1) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D/234F of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023
all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
ITA No.2216/MUM/2026 challenges the Order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) 53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2023, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 5. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not providing an opportunity to present the case on merit and passing an ex parte order u/s 250 of the Act IT Act 1961 by confirming all the addition made by the Ld AO to the retuned income and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made thereunder.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the Ld AO to the returned income by allegedly assuming that cash found during the course of search at the assessee's premises as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D/234F of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
When the appeals were taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee was proceeded ex-parte by the Learned CIT(A) since the tax consultant appointed by the Assessee had failed to make representation before the Learned CIT(A) on account of preoccupation in other assignments. The Learner Authorised Representative for the pleaded that another opportunity be granted to the Assessee to pursue the grounds of appeal raised on merits before the Learned CIT(A).
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Assessee to make representation. However, since the Assessee had failed to take benefit of the same, order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained.
On perusal of the order impugned we find that appeals were fixed for hearing on five occasions. In both the appeals, last three notices were issued over a short span of three months between October and December 2025 when the assessment proceedings about to conclude. Therefore, given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant Assessee another opportunity to make proper representation before the Learned CIT(A) subject to payment of cost of INR.5,000/- per appeal to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within a period of 30 days of this order.
Subject to deposit of cost as above (a) Order, dated 30/12/2025, passed by the CIT(A) in Appeal No.CIT(A)53,Mumbai/10146/2020-21 for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 and (b) Order, dated Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023
17/01/2025, passed by the CIT(A) in Appeal No.CIT(A)53,Mumbai/10125/2021-22 for the Assessment Year 2022- 2023 are set aside, with the directions to the Learned CIT(A) adjudicate both the appeals afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) is directed to verify the payment of the aforesaid cost before adjudicating the appeal afresh.
The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to admit/consider the same as per law. It is, however, clarified that in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing issued by the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record.
Thus, Ground No. 2 raised in each of the appeals is allowed for statistical purposes and all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
In terms of paragraph 8 to 8.3 above, both the appeals preferred by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 30.04.2026. (Om Prakash Kant) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 30.04.2026 Aditi Pandare, Private Secretary Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 आदेशकी"ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""थ"/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु"/ The CIT
"धान आयकर आयु"/ Pr.CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT,
Mumbai गाड"फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत"ित //// उप/सहायकपंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
