What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the need for a proper adjudication and substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 with a delay. The CIT(A) had decided the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the assessee should be admitted despite a significant delay and ex-parte decision by the lower appellate authority. The need for a fresh adjudication on merits.

Suleman Chambers Co Operative… vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. D.R

Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1857 & 7413/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Suleman Chambers ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Co-operative Housing Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Society Limited, Mumbai - 400051 Vs. 4, Battery Street, Appolo Bunder, Colaba, Mumbai - 400039. PAN – AABAS5353G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Nitin Kulkarni, Ld. A.R Revenue by : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.09.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16.

Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee, for condonation of delay of 85 days in filing of instant appeal, which are otherwise supported with duly sworn affidavit, delay is condoned.

Considering the conduct of the Assessee, as depicted in the impugned order that despite affording three opportunities, the Assessee made no compliance, therefore, the ld. Commissioner was

ITA No.1857 & 7413/M/2026 2 Suleman Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Limited constrained to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee as ex-parte and on the basis of material available on record and therefore, the Assessee deserves no leniency. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the issue also remains to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this court is inclined to remand both the cases under consideration to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee.

In the result Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER

(Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

SULEMAN CHAMBERS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(2)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments