What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an effective opportunity to the assessee to be heard. Principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity for submission of evidence and arguments.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The assessee had requested an adjournment to gather necessary documents from the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sharma Stones (Mumbai) Private… vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Solani

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Hearing: 07/05/2026Pronounced: 12/05/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai for the assessment year 2019-20 arising out of assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-

2 ITA No.1799/Mum/2026 Sharma Stones (India) Pvt. Ltd.

“The Hon CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal exparte, ignoring the request of the appellant for adjournment as the appellant was seeking certain documents/information from the Id AO and hence the order passed by the Hon. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without granting the appellant any reasonable opportunity to submit its say breaches the salient principles of equity and natural justice and hence is not justified and bad in law and therefore the order dismissing the appeal may kindly be set aside. 2 The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.31,16,513/- as alleged capitalized interest received in cash, not appreciating the nature of entries recorded on seized paper and overruling the genuine explanation submitted by the appellant during the course of asst. proceedings. The addition of Rs.31,16,513/- on the above count being unjustified by facts and in law is required to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or vary any of the above ground of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that the assessee had sought adjournment since certain documents/information were being collected from the Assessing Officer and therefore, the appeal could not be effectively represented.

It was further submitted that in assessee’s own case on identical issue, in ITA No.1798/Mum/2026 the matter has

3 ITA No.1799/Mum/2026 Sharma Stones (India) Pvt. Ltd. already been adjudicated by the Tribunal and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the same and decided the matter accordingly.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte and decided the issue without providing effective opportunity to the assessee. It is a settled principle of law that the assessee must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the appellate authority is required to adjudicate the matter after considering the submissions and evidences of the assessee.

We find that the Tribunal on exactly similar facts and circumstances has set-aside the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A). On similar lines, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4 ITA No.1799/Mum/2026 Sharma Stones (India) Pvt. Ltd. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 12th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 12/05/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps 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//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

SHARMA STONES (MUMBAI) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments