SADIK ALI SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. DC CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 1972/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Sadik Ali Shaikh, 19/25, ¾ Deputy Commissioner of Income Noor Manzil, X Lane, Opp Tax, 17(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Amin Hotel, Nishanpada, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. Mumbai – 400009, Maharashtra. PAN NO.AMFPS 7325 H Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri. Gaurang Khakhkhar (Virtually Present) : Shri Ashish Kumar CIT DR Revenue by

: 17/06/2026 Date of Hearing : 22/06/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Udaipur [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for Assessment Year [in short ‘the AY’] 2013-14, raising the following grounds:-

Sadik Ali Shaikh, 2 ITA No. 1927/MUM/2026

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant parte and confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without Appellant parte and confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without Appellant parte and confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without providing an effectiv providing an effective and sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby violating e and sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. the principles of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, despite having all the relevant facts and documents ounds of appeal on merits, despite having all the relevant facts and documents ounds of appeal on merits, despite having all the relevant facts and documents from the assessment proceedings on record. The order passed is thus devoid of from the assessment proceedings on record. The order passed is thus devoid of from the assessment proceedings on record. The order passed is thus devoid of any independent application of mind and is liable to be quashed. any independent application of mind and is liable to be quashed. any independent application of mind and is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circums 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) tances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant submits that the entire reassessment is bad in law submits that the entire reassessment is bad in law, void ab , void ab-initio, and without jurisdiction as the mandatory pre jurisdiction as the mandatory pre-conditions for a valid reopening were not conditions for a valid reopening were not fulfilled. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming Assessing Officer in treating the capital gain on the sale of property as Short Term Officer in treating the capital gain on the sale of property as Short Term Officer in treating the capital gain on the sale of property as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) instead of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). Capital Gain (STCG) instead of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). Capital Gain (STCG) instead of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 4,25,826/ deduction of Rs. 4,25,826/- claimed by the Appellant under section 54 of the Act, claimed by the Appellant under section 54 of the Act, which was a direct consequence of the erroneous treatment of the gain as STCG. which was a direct consequence of the erroneous treatment of the gain as STCG. which was a direct consequence of the erroneous treatment of the gain as STCG. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing erred in confirming the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing erred in confirming the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, which are based on surmises, conjectures, and presumptions and are Officer, which are based on surmises, conjectures, and presumptions and are Officer, which are based on surmises, conjectures, and presumptions and are contrary to the facts on record. contrary to the facts on record.” 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were never effectively that the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were never effectively that the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were never effectively served upon the assessee, as the same were dispatched to an served upon the assessee, as the same were dispatched to an served upon the assessee, as the same were dispatched to an incorrect e-mail address. In support of this contention, the lear mail address. In support of this contention, the lear mail address. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed before us screenshots of the notices issued during counsel placed before us screenshots of the notices issued during counsel placed before us screenshots of the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. It was submitted that in Form No. 35, the appellate proceedings. It was submitted that in Form No. 35, the appellate proceedings. It was submitted that in Form No. 35, the the assessee assessee had had furnished furnished his his e e-mail mail address address as as

Sadik Ali Shaikh, 3 ITA No. 1927/MUM/2026

a_y_sayyid@yahoo.com a_y_sayyid@yahoo.com. However, the notices issued by the the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were sent to a different e learned CIT(A) were sent to a different e-mail address, namely mail address, namely sadik@sstworld.com sadik@sstworld.com, which admittedly did not belong to the , which admittedly did not belong to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the notices and was deprived of an effective opportunity to represent his s and was deprived of an effective opportunity to represent his s and was deprived of an effective opportunity to represent his case before the first appellate authority. It was thus contended that case before the first appellate authority. It was thus contended that case before the first appellate authority. It was thus contended that the ex parte order came to be passed solely on account of non- the ex parte order came to be passed solely on account of non the ex parte order came to be passed solely on account of non service of notices and not due to any deliberate default or lack of service of notices and not due to any deliberate default or service of notices and not due to any deliberate default or diligence on the part of the assessee. diligence on the part of the assessee.

3.1 Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for the assessee's we are satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for the assessee's we are satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). In compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). In compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). In

Sadik Ali Shaikh, 4 ITA No. 1927/MUM/2026

the interest of substantial the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) shall afford the assessee an adequate and effective learned CIT(A) shall afford the assessee an adequate and effective learned CIT(A) shall afford the assessee an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a reasoned and being heard and thereafter pass a reasoned and being heard and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all the issues raised in appeal. The speaking order dealing with all the issues raised in appeal. The speaking order dealing with all the issues raised in appeal. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and to promptly respond to all notices that may be proceedings and to promptly respond to all notices that may be proceedings and to promptly respond to all notices that may be issued by the learned CIT(A). he learned CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open Court o ounced in the open Court on 22/06 06/2026. Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/06/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Sadik Ali Shaikh, 5 ITA No. 1927/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai