What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23. The CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits despite the assessee's non-compliance with a notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the appeal on merits. The procedural fairness in appeal proceedings.

M/S. R.D Construction vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2026

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, Ld. A.R

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.1504 & 1505/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 M/s R D Construction, DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Shop No. 10, Nidhi Industrial 453, 4th Floor, Complex, Opp. Sai Service, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Sativali Road, Vasai (E), C- 41 to C-43, Palghar, G Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Maharashtra – 401 208 Mumbai - 400051 PAN – AAWFR3345R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Hitesh Jain, 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 15.12.2025, 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. 2021-22 & 2022-23.

At the outset, it is observed from the impugned orders that though the Assessee made no compliance in response to the notice issued by the ld. Commissioner however, it is a fact that the ld. Commissioner as well, failed to decide the case on merit, which is not permissible and therefore, this court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard

ITA No.1504 & 1505/M/2025 2 M/s R D Construction

to the Assessee. However, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ in individual cases, by the Assessee.

This court clarifies that in case of any subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

In the result, Assessee’s appeals are 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.

M/S. R.D CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), 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