MIKITA VIMALKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1036/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 April 2026AY 2021-225 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution, as the assessee did not appear for hearings or file any submissions despite opportunities. The decision was made based on the available records without delving into the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte without dealing with the merits. The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to appear for hearings and provide submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order passed ex-parte without granting a final opportunity of hearing is valid. Whether the assessee's appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to appear and submit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR DR)
Hearing: 27.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1035 & 1036/MUM/2026(AY: 2022-23 & 2021-22)

Mikita Vimalkumar Jain, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 8(4), Room No.1 Madrash Chawl Room No. 658, 6th Floor,, Aayakar No. 4, Orlem Tank Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Inamdar Estate, Malad West, Mumbai 400 064. PAN/GIR No: AHKPJ3117G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Aditya Rai (SR DR) Date of Hearing 27.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'Act') by the Commissioner of

Income Tax, Appeals, 50, Mumbai dated 15.11.2025 for the assessment year (AY)

2022-23 and 2021-22. Since the facts and grounds are similar, the appeals were

clubbed together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and

brevity. ITA No.1035/Mum/2026 (AY: 2022-23) is taken as the “lead case.”

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1035/Mum/2026

(AY: 2022-23) are as under:

"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order without giving the appellant a final opportunity of hearing. Therefore, order passed u/s 250 of the Act in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as such, the same is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order ex-parte and without dealing on merits. Therefore, order passed u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law and is liable to be quashed

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 143(3) for the said assessment year

4.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O of Rs. 20,000/- on account of unaccounted cash transactions, treating the same as deemed income under section 69A taxable u/s. 115BBE of the Act.

5.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O of Rs. 2,75,000/- on account of unaccounted cash transactions, treating the same as deemed income under section 69A taxable u/s. 115BBE of the Act.

6.

The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, delete from or substantiate the above grounds of appeal.”

3.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1036/Mum/2026

(AY: 2021-22) are as under:

" 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in lato, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order without giving the appellant a final opportunity of hearing. Therefore, order passed u/s 250 of the Act in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as such, the same is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order ex-parte and without dealing on merits. Therefore, order passed u/s 250 of the Act is bad in lato and is liable to be quashed.

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. A.O u/s. 143(3) for the said assessment year.

4.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 75,500/-on account of unexplained expenditure, treating the same as deemed income under section 69A taxable u/s. 115BBE of the Act.

5.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 14,50,000/- on account of advancement of loan considering it as unexplained investment under section 69A taxable u/s. 115BBE of the Act, without considering the fact that the source of such loan has already been explained during the assessment proceedings.

6.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in not accepting the income of Rs. 1,16,000/-earned by the Appellate u/s. 44AD of the Act.

7.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A. O of Rs. 10,40,000/- on account of rent u/s 69A of the Act.

8.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of rent u/s 69A of the Act.

9.

The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, delete from or substantiate the above grounds of appeal.”

4.

The case was originally posted for hearing on 23.03.2026. On request of ,

Shri Akshay Jain, the Ld. AR of the assessee, the case was adjourned to

27.04.2026. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 27.04.2026

nor any request for adjournment nor any written submission was filed. Hence, no

useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings before us. The

case is, accordingly, decided on the basis of materials on record.

5.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income

for the AY 2022-23 on 31.07.2022 declaring total income at Rs.13,45,240/-. The

case was selected for scrutiny and after hearing the assessee, addition of

Rs.2,95,000/- (20,000 + 2,75,000) was made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

Accordingly, the A.O. passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on

15.06.2023 determining the total income at Rs.16,40,240/- against the returned

income of Rs.13,45,240/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed the

appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after observing that the

assessee made no specific submission to pursue the appeal. Assessee also did not

avail the opportunities offered to him from time to time. Accordingly, the appeal

was dismissed.

6.

Aggrieved by the order CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the

Tribunal. As stated earlier, the case was adjourned on the request of the Ld. AR of

the appellant. However, on the date fixed for hearing, neither the appellant nor

the AR appeared. No letter of adjournment was also filed nor any written

submission along with relevant details were filed. It is thus clear from the above

facts that the appellant has no specific submissions to file to pursue the pending

appeal. It is well settled that the Tribunal has power to dismiss the appeal if the

appellant does not represent its case despite adequate and reasonable

opportunity granted to him. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the

case, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating

the reasons for non-appearance/compliance/prosecution.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

ITA No.1036/Mum/2026 (AY: 2021-22)

8.

The facts of this appeal is similar to those of ITA No.1035/Mum/2026

decided above. Hence, following the reasons given above, this appeal is also

dismissed.

9.

In the combined result, both appeals of the appellant are dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 28.04.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The PCIT/CIT 4. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →