TARASING & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरणन्यायपीठम ुंबईमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.6794/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Tarasing & Sons ITO Ward 33 (1) (1) C/10, Roy Apt, Sahar, Andheri Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai Vs. (East), Mumbai-400099 PAN: AAHFT5354K Revenue -प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent Assessee - अपीलार्थी / Appellant :

: Shri Yaduraj Singh – SR. DR. Revenue by Assessee by : Shri Hitesh Joshi, CA Date of Hearing 06.04.2026 : Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is instituted by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 19.08.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 arises from assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 26.12.2017 passed by Income Tax Officer – 25(1)(5), Mumbai. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in this matter, both the assessment order and order of First Appellate Authority are passed on ex parte

ITA No. 6794/Mum/2025 Tarasing & Sons basis and there was no adjudication by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order on merits of the case. 3. Briefly explained, the AO in the ex parte, best judgment order had made an addition of Rs.25,46,909/- u/s 68 of the Act, treating the contractual receipts of the assessee amounting to Rs.3,18,36,363/- as unexplained cash credit and, therefore, has estimated a profit of 8% on such contractual receipts of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the additions in absence of any response by the assessee. It is submitted that under identical facts and circumstances “E” Bench of ITAT Mumbai had restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Therefore, it is requested to decide this matter on same ratio. 4. Per contra, Ld. Senior DR supported the orders of revenue authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 in ITA Nos. 6795 and 6796 of 2025 vide order dated 17.02.2016, wherein the identical matters are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), under the following observations: “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 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 2

ITA No. 6794/Mum/2025 Tarasing & Sons 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 under s. 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." 3. In backdrop of aforesaid facts and circumstances and ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we are inclined to set-aside the order of Id. CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.” 6. Since the matter in the present appeal before us is at parity with the facts and circumstances of the appeals of assessee for assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 (supra), which are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), we deem it apposite to restore the instant matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), without any adjudication on merits, following the decision of ITAT Mumbai in assessee’s own case.

ITA No. 6794/Mum/2025 Tarasing & Sons 7. In result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 8. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard, in this final set aside opportunity. The assessee is directed to remain compliant before the Appellate Authority in the set aside proceedings, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the issue in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-04-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated : 27-04-2026. Ankit, 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