CHETAN SHIVAJI SHINDE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 9227/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 June 2026AY 2020-2111 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chetan Shivaji Shinde, is an individual. For Assessment Year 2020-2021, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information received through the Risk Management Strategy (RMS) concerning salary income of Rs. 2,38,465/- and a property sale consideration of Rs. 61,00,000/-. The AO made additions of Rs. 2,38,465/- for salary and Rs. 61,00,000/- as Short-Term Capital Gain, assessing total income at Rs. 63,38,465/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine under section 249(4)(b) for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, as no return of income was filed and the assessee had not paid the advance tax payable. The assessee is in appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal at the threshold under section 249(4)(b) without adjudicating the grounds on merits or legal issues. Considering the facts, circumstances, and submissions, including the concession by the Revenue's DR on the applicability of section 249(4)(b), the Tribunal found that restoring the matter for fresh adjudication would meet the ends of justice. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing, adjudicating all grounds raised by the assessee, including merits and legal grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or the validity of reassessment proceedings, leaving all issues open for the CIT(A)'s independent consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) by incorrectly presuming that the appellant was liable to pay advance tax, given that the income assessed was not known or ascertainable during the relevant financial year and was determined only through reassessment proceedings (Section 207, 208, 249(4)(b)). 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the merits of the reassessment order, issuing a defect notice, or passing a reasoned order as mandated by Section 250(6), thereby violating principles of natural justice. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that no advance tax was payable under Sections 207 and 208 as the income was not known during the financial year and was determined later in reassessment. The assessee also contended that a "Not Applicable" remark in Form 35 regarding Section 249(4)(b) should have led to a clarification notice, not outright dismissal. The dismissal in limine without considering merits violated natural justice and Section 250(6). The assessee also argued on merits that the addition was made in the hands of the wrong person, as the property beneficially belonged to his mother. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, the learned DR conceded the issue relating to the applicability of Section 249(4)(b) after considering the assessee's computation of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 249(4)(b),Section 234B(1),Section 208,Section 207,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 120,Section 124,Section 151A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Parul Pandya/Shri. Ritesh
For Respondent: Shri V.S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 14.05.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"]under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for Assessment Year 2020-21, arising out of the assessment order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 1

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →