HEMENDRA MATHRADAS KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 17(), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1192/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 April 2026AY 2021-224 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 assessee's Authorized Representative filed an application for withdrawal of both appeals. Consequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The grounds of appeal raised various issues including additions to income from house property, levy of interest under section 234A, and capital gains computation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's decision to withdraw the appeals, rendering the substantive grounds of appeal moot. The appeals involved disputes over house property income, interest levy, and capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 234A,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Sagar
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1192 & 1193/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23)

Hemendra Mathradas Vs. Deputy Commissioner Kothari of Income Tax, Circle – 11th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, 17(1), Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. PAN/GIR No. ABOPK8771F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P. P. Sagar Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders both dated 04.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The following grounds are reproduced below:

2 ITA Nos. 1192 & 1193/Mum/2026 Hemendra Mathradas Kothari

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in making certain observations while disposing Ground No.2 raised pertaining to addition of income from house property. The learned CIT (A) based on surmises and conjectures made sweeping observations that the Annual Lettable Value [ALV] offered by the appellant of Rs.5,84,808/- is not justified considering the location of the let out property. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order without adjudicating on merits Ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised before him, thereby violating the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3.a The learned CIT(A) erred in treating Ground No. 4 relating to levy of interest u/s 234A as "consequential in nature", despite the fact that the return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed within the extended due date of 15.03.2022 as per CBDT Circulars issued due to Covid-19, and hence no interest u/s 234A was leviable. b The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that as per his return of income, the appellant had a refund due of Rs.39,76,970/- arising out of credit for TDS/TCS & advance taxes paid and thus there remained no amount of tax payable on which the said interest under section 234A could have been levied and has erred in treating Ground No. 4 relating to levy of interest u/s 234A as "consequential in nature. c On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the very chargeability of interest under section 234A was challenged and not merely the quantum of interest which would have been a percentage of the assessed tax finally determined. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating Ground No. 5 relating to adoption of Capital Gains at Rs. 4,03,73,53,967/- as against Rs. 99,87,33,879/-. returned by the appellant, without any discussion, computation or reference to the evidence, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 5. The appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law, non- speaking, arbitrary and liable to be set aside to the extent of non- adjudicated grounds.

3 ITA Nos. 1192 & 1193/Mum/2026 Hemendra Mathradas Kothari

6.

Without prejudice, on the facts and in law the notice under section 143(2) was invalid as it did not comply with the mandatory format prescribed in the CBDT Circular No. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dt. 23/06/2017 and the notice issued under section 143(2) is not valid as per law. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. 8. Each of the above ground of appeal is independent of the others and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal. 9. The appellant prays that :- the income from house property as returned by the appellant be accepted the interest levied under section 234A be deleted the addition directly incorporated in the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order under the head "Capital Gains" be deleted the assessment order be treated as not valid as per law alternately the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored back for fresh adjudication of Ground Nos. 4 and 5 on merits. to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of law.”

2.

The Ld. AR filed an application for withdrawal of these two appeals. Consequently, considering the request of the Ld. AR, both the appeals are disposed of as withdrawn.

4 ITA Nos. 1192 & 1193/Mum/2026 Hemendra Mathradas Kothari

3.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27.04.2026 RY, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →