JAGDISH ISHWARDAS NIHALANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2212/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice, but subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 11,000.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The Assessing Officer had made additions for unexplained money and long-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied an effective opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (SR. DR)
Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 14.05.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 arising from assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.2212/M/2026 Jagdish Ishwardas Nihalani 2. The assessee has raised grounds challenging reopening as well as additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained money u/s 69A and long term capital gain.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B determining total income at Rs.74,37,000/- by making addition of Rs.33,05,000/- u/s 69A and Rs.41,32,000/- towards alleged long term capital gain. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte observing that despite several opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued during appellate proceedings.

4.

Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte and effective opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee is desirous of pursuing the appeal and necessary evidences would be filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. However, he fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. Though the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issues on merits also, the fact remains that the appeal has been decided without effective representation from the side of the assessee. Considering the principles of natural justice, we are of the

ITA No.2212/M/2026 Jagdish Ishwardas Nihalani considered view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the appellate authority.

7.

At the same time, it is also evident from the appellate order that several opportunities were granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and there was repeated non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in order to balance the equities, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of cost of Rs.11,000/- by the assessee under “Other Head” of the Income Tax Department within 15 days from the receipt of this order.

8.

The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidences and cooperate in the appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Ld. CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/05/2026

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

Mumbai, Dated: 14/05/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.2212/M/2026 Jagdish Ishwardas Nihalani

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

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →