ARVIND BABULALJI GOYAL ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A), Agra [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 14/10/2025 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and dated 21/03/2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13, on following grounds of appeal:-

2011-12

1) That the appellant denies his liability to be assessed at total income of 724,66,420 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(*the Act") as against the returned income of 72,82,700 and accordingly denies his liability to pay the additional tax and interest thereon levied by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in making the above additions by not observing the principles of natural justice. That the conclusion and inferences of the Assessing Officer are based on suspicious, conjectures, surmises and extraneous and irrelevant considerations. 3) That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appals) has erred on facts and in law by making a disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in making disallowances purely on the grounds of relying on third- party statements and reports which are adverse to the assessee without bringing any fresh material on record to give a finding as to their disallowance and without granting any opportunity of cross- examination of the evidence relied upon by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby violating principles of natural 5) The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify or amend any or all grounds of appeal till the disposal of the Appeal.”

2012-13

1) That the appellant denies his liability to be assessed at total income of 14,77,867 u/s 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and accordingly denies his liability to pay the additional tax and interest thereon levied by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in making the above additions by not observing the principles of natural justice.

That the conclusion and inferences of the Assessing Officer are based on suspicious, conjectures, surmises and extraneous and irrelevant considerations. 3) That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law by making a disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in making disallowances purely on the grounds of relying on third- party statements and reports which are adverse to the assessee without bringing any fresh material on record to give a finding as to their disallowance and without granting any opportunity of cross- examination of the evidence relied upon by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby violating principles of natural justice. 5) The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify or amend any or all grounds of appeal till the disposal of the Appeal.” 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 36 days in filing ITA No. 1290/Mum/2026. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons that prevented the appeal from being filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Having considered the submissions of the assessee and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the delay was occasioned due to reasonable and bona fide causes and was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 36 days in filing ITA No. 1290/Mum/2026 and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.1. At the outset, it is observed that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), for both the assessment years are ex-parte orders. It is an admitted position that none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the first appellate authority and the appeals came to be disposed of ex-parte.

2.2. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from effectively prosecuting the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that for Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee was not provided with a copy of the assessment order and, therefore, could not effectively represent its case before the appellate authority. The Ld. AR thus prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee in the interest of justice.

The Ld. DR fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

Accordingly, the impugned orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are set aside and the appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

For Assessment Year 2011-12, we further direct that a copy of the assessment order and all relevant documents relied upon by the Revenue, if not already furnished, shall be provided to the assessee to enable effective representation before the appellate authority.

The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and file all requisite details and evidences as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

In view of the above directions, all the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 17/06/2026 SC. Sr. P.S.

Copy to:

POOJA ARVIND GOYAL , 2302, ANMOL PRESTIGE GOVINDJI 1 CHROFF ROAD GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI-400104, MAHARASHTRA

ITO WARD 41(4)(3), 2 KAUTILYA BHAVANBKC MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE