SIRAJ YUSUF SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VASHI RAILWAY STATION BUILDING

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8299/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2012-13)

Siraj Yusuf Shaikh vs ITO Ward , Mumbai 98/2957 Pantnagar, Mumbai- Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 400075 PAN:AAVPS3767R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vinay Bhanushali Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 17/06/2026 Date of pronouncement : 22/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 14.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(3), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 144 of the Act date of order 28.11.2019.

2 ITA No.8299/Mum/2025 Siraj Yusuf Shaikh 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a small catering business and has income was below taxable limit. But the assessee deposit the cash in bank account amount to Rs.10,47,000/-. The assessee’s case was reopened u/sec. 147 of the Act and accordingly the notice was duly issued. The Ld. AO finally passed an exparte order and confirmed the addition related cash deposit amo0unt to Rs. 10,47,000/- & other deposit amount to Rs. 1,99,105/- which comes total amount to Rs.12,46,105/- with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1998 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-prosecution and without considering the merit of the case. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued and stated that the assessee has a small catering business and the taxable income was below the threshold limit. So, the assessee had not filed any return during the impugned assessment year. The assessee deposited cash amount to Rs.10,47,000/- in relation to his business transactions. But the assessment order was passed exparte and assessee had not allowed the reasonable opportunity to submit the evidence in favor of his claim. Finally, the Ld. AR submitted the affidavit and duly explained the delay for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The copy of the affidavit was duly placed before the Bench. We find that there is a merit on assessee’s petition for explaining delay for filing appeal but the assessee was unable to submit the said petition and affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceeding. So, the Ld. AR prayed for another opportunity and to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

3 ITA No.8299/Mum/2025 Siraj Yusuf Shaikh 4. The Ld. DR argued and opposed the submission of Ld. AR. He stands in favor of the order of revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. The assessee was engaged in a small catering business and had explained that the cash deposit of Rs.10,47,000 in the bank account was generated from the said business activity. The addition was confirmed amount to Rs. 12,46,110/- including cash deposit & other deposit. The assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1,998 days. In our view, the assessee was not afforded an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. It is true that the assessee did not file a condonation petition or supporting affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay in filing the appeal. However, the assessee has now placed an affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the reasons for such delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file the aforesaid affidavit along with an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions involved in the case, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observations contained herein. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set-aside appellate proceedings and shall be permitted to place all relevant documents and evidence on record. At the same time, the assessee is

4 ITA No.8299/Mum/2025 Siraj Yusuf Shaikh directed to remain diligent and extend full cooperation to ensure the expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.8299/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of June 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 22/06/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI