ROCKY JAMES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 42 3 2, KAUTILYA BHAVAN MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3791/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Rocky James ITO-42(3)(2) 701, Tulsi Vihar Plot Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, No. 55, Sector-19, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410 210 PAN/GIR No. AHBPJ7378J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for the assessment year 2015-16, arising from the assessment order dated 19.01.2024

2 ITA No. 3791/Mum/2026 Rocky James passed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Unit[hereinafter referred to Assessing Officer”]. 2. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal challenging the action of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits and in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the assessment order are that the assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer noted that no return of income under section 139(1) of the Act had been filed for the assessment year under consideration. Based on information available with the Department, it was noticed that the assessee had sold an immovable property during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16 for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. It was further noticed that the assessee had maintained a bank account with IDBI Bank in which certain cash deposits and other credit transactions were reflected and had also received salary income from Caliber Point Business Solutions Limited and Hexaware Technologies Private Limited. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer obtained information from the Sub-Registrar and from the bank under section 133(6) of the Act. According to the Assessing

3 ITA No. 3791/Mum/2026 Rocky James Officer, the assessee sold Flat No.701, Tulsi Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Plot No.55, Sector-19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. Since no documentary evidence regarding the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement was furnished, the Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- as short-term capital gain chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further determined salary income at Rs.6,51,758/-, treated credits of Rs.11,21,056/- in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and assessed interest income of Rs.31,150/- under the head "Income from Other Sources". Consequently, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.78,03,964/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), in the impugned order, recorded that several notices were issued during the appellate proceedings. However, according to him, the assessee did not furnish the requisite documents and did not effectively pursue the appeal. The learned CIT(A) observed that despite adequate opportunities, no submissions were filed and the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying upon the decisions in the cases of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution without adjudicating the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits.

4 ITA No. 3791/Mum/2026 Rocky James 6. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. We have, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record. The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that the impugned order does not contain any adjudication on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. He did not raise any objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. 7. We have carefully considered the impugned order and the material placed before us. It is an undisputed position that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the issues arising from the assessment order on merits. The appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground that the assessee did not effectively prosecute the appellate proceedings. The order of the learned CIT(A) does not contain any discussion on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer nor does it contain any finding on the grounds raised before him. 8. In our considered view, the learned CIT(A), being the first appellate authority, is statutorily required to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order in conformity with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The said provision obligates the appellate authority to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. Even where the assessee remains unrepresented, the learned CIT(A) is required to examine the material available on record and

5 ITA No. 3791/Mum/2026 Rocky James adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits. The powers vested in the learned CIT(A) do not extend to dismissal of an appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution without deciding the issues arising in appeal. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT(A) has merely recorded the alleged non-compliance on the part of the assessee and dismissed the appeal without rendering any finding on the additions relating to short-term capital gain, salary income, addition under section 69A and income from other sources. Such an order is not in conformity with the requirements of section 250(6) of the Act and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the learned Departmental Representative has not objected to restoration of the matter, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all relevant details and evidences as may be called for by the learned CIT(A). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and all issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A).

6 ITA No. 3791/Mum/2026 Rocky James 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 17/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai