CHANDRASINH BHARATSINH GOHIL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2214/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2026AY 2020-215 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of hearing both parties and decided to allow the assessee one last opportunity to represent their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities. The assessee's counsel was unable to attend due to professional commitments, leading to the non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without a decision on merits. Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

Hearing: 27.05.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.2213 & 2214/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Chandrasinh Bharatsinh Gohil DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai 1901/A, A wing, Ashok Garden Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051 Vs. T J Road Sewri, Mumbai-400015 PAN: ACCPG0264E Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : Ms. Nupur : Shri Sandeep Jumale – Sr. DR Revenueby : 28.04.2026 Date of Hearing : 27.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The aforesaid two appeals pertain to same assessee, arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – 53, Mumbai [in short,“the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 30.12.2025 for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21.

2.

Going through the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that both the appeals of assessee are dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of non- compliance. It is noticed that in the assessment year 2019-20, the assessee was afforded with 5 opportunities, out of which on first occasion on 11.08.2025, the

ITA No. 2213 & 2214/Mum/2026 Chandrasinh Bharatsinh Gohil assessee sought an adjournment. However, in the next four occasions on 02.10.2025, 21.10.2025, 06.11.2025 and 19.12.2025 the assessee did not respond. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly proceeded to decide the appeals based on material available on record.

3.

before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee requested for restoration of these appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A), before whom the assessee was unable to represent his cases on account of some unavoidable difficulties and, therefore, the assessee wishes to represent again with necessary submissions, explanations and evidence to support the contentions raised before the First Appellate Authority.

4.

Per contra, Ld. DR though had vehemently supported the orders of Revenue Authority, but had not objected to the request of the assessee, if the matter is restored back for fresh adjudication to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

6.

On perusal of the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years that is AYs. 2019-20 and 2020-21, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) had afforded assessee with reasonable opportunities of being heard, however, the assessee was unable to furnish any explanation or submission before him. 2

ITA No. 2213 & 2214/Mum/2026 Chandrasinh Bharatsinh Gohil

7.

Before us, it was the submission by Ld. AR of the assessee that the appeals of assessee are taken up during the month of October and November 2025 and the counsel of assessee, who is a Chartered Accountant could not attend the proceedings, because he was busy in tax audit assignments. It was the submission that the non-compliance had occurred on account of the busyness of the assessee’s counsel in his professional endeavor and, therefore, there was no mala fide intention or deliberate negligence on the part of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee requested for one last and final opportunity to represent the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), without which the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(A) would not be under the right appreciation of facts, therefore cannot be considered to be a justified and reasonable decisions.

8.

We have considered the prayer of the assessee and also the concession given by the Ld. DR,to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, we are of the considered view that any appeal should have been decided after hearing both the parties concerned in a justified manner and with a liberal approach. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premkumar Arnjundas Luthra (Huf) [(2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)]wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: ““2. At the outset, it is noticed that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, whereas these appeals are fixed for hearing, after the adjournment as requested by the assessee on the previous date of hearing dated 22.12.2025. It is further 3

ITA No. 2213 & 2214/Mum/2026 Chandrasinh Bharatsinh Gohil brought to our notice by the Id. Sr. DR representing the revenue that in these matters both the impugned orders passed by revenue authorities i.e. the Id. AO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) are ex-parte orders and there was no compliance by the assessee before both the authorities. Further on perusal of the order of Id. CIT(A) at para-4, it is evident that the Id. CIT(A) has granted 10 opportunities by fixing the date of hearing starting from 16.08.2023 up to 11.02.2025, however there was no submissions by the assessee/appellant. We further noticed that the Id. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that "Even otherwise on the merits of its also, I do not see any reason to differ with the findings of ld. AO". This shows, there was no discussion on merits in the order of Id. CIT(A), though he was also compelled with the circumstances as the assessee has not furnished any response before him. We find that Id. CIT(A) was under obligation to pass a reasonable, justified and speaking order by considering the facts and material on record, so as to comply with the provisions of section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)- [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal unders. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act."

ITA No. 2213 & 2214/Mum/2026 Chandrasinh Bharatsinh Gohil 9. In view of aforesaid facts, circumstances and jurisprudence, without going into the merits of the additions/disallowances made by the Ld. AO, we deem it appropriate to restore both these matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we do so.

10.

Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and pro-actively assist in the set aside proceedings, failing which the appellate authority would be at liberty to decide the appeal in accordance with the mandate of law.

11.

In result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 27-05-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 5

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →