A1- FACILITY AND PROPERTY MANAGERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1243/MUM/2026 (AY:2023-24) A-1 Facility and Property vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), 6th Floor, Aayakar Managers Pvt Ltd., Shop No. 4, A wing, Orbit Terrace Bhawan, Mumbai-400020. Rehab A-wing CHSL, N.M. Joshi Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Delisle Road S.O Mumbai -400013. PAN/GIR No: AAGCA3379K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Darshit Naik (Virtually appeared) Revenue by Shri Rajendra Chandekar ( CIT DR) Date of Hearing 22.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.06.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This 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), ADDL/JCIT, Kochi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 23.12.2025

for the assessment year (AY) 2023-24.

“1) The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) erred in not considering the facts before him and the documents on record which is contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.

2) Both lower authorities erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.20,22,96,091/- claimed by the Appellant u/s 80JJAA when all the conditions laid down therein were substantially satisfied.

3) Both lower authorities erred in disallowing the Appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs.20.22 crores correctly claimed by the Appellant solely due to the reason that the prescribed Form No 10DA was not filed within the due date prescribed.

4) Both lower authorities erred in disallowing the Appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA due to a mere procedural lapse of delayed filing of Form 10DA, that too on the part of the Chartered Accountant of the Appellant. 5) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not sending the notices of communication as per the provisions of section 282 rule 127.

6) The above Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to and are independent of each other.”

for the AY 2023-24 on 30.10.2023 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming

deduction of Rs.13.70 Crores u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The return was processed by

the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein the claim of deduction was disallowed and

demand of Rs.27.05 Lakhs was raised. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee

filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 3 notices which were not

complied with by the assessee. Therefore, relying on various decisions namely,

P.N. Balasubramaniam (AP) 112 ITR 512, B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another (118 ITR

461) and M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009, the

CIT(A) held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. On merits also, he dismissed

the appeal by stating that the assessee did not file any written submissions to

substantiate the claim made during the appellate proceedings.

Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book enclosing various details and

submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) is not as per the mandate of sub-section

(6) of section 250 of the Act. He submitted that all the details in support of the 2 grounds are available with the assessee and, in the interest of justice, one more

opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead its case on merit.

however, have no objection if the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A).

that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order and dismissed the appeal due to non-

compliance by the appellant. The order passed by the CIT(A) is clearly in violation

of the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which mandates that

an order of CIT(A) disposing an appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We find

that the CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-

prosecution without discussing the merit of the case including disallowance u/s

80JJAA of the Act. The assessee has raised specific ground on this issue in the

appeal filed before the CIT(A). The said issue has not at all been deliberated in the

appellate order and the appeal has been dismissed by passing a non-speaking and

cryptic order. Therefore, without delving further into the matter, we deem it

proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for passing

a speaking order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act after granting

adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The

assessee is directed to file necessary submission and supporting evidences by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. The ground is allowed for statistical

purpose.

adjudication, there is no need to adjudicate the other grounds which become

academic in nature.

Order is pronounced on 15.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 15.06.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI