INDIRA CHANDRAKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 3807/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals without adjudicating any of the grounds raised, both technical and on merits. While the CIT(A) had called for a remand report, the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not comply with several notices. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the dates of the notices issued for compliance. Crucially, the CIT(A)'s order explicitly stated that the appeals were dismissed without any adjudication. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore all the appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide all the grounds of appeal, both technical and on merits, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate authority must adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee, and dismissal for non-compliance without proper record of notices and without adjudication is unsustainable. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indira Chandrakant Shah, filed six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai, dated 26.01.2026. These appeals pertain to assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised common grounds of appeal, primarily arguing that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating the legal/technical grounds and the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The amount in dispute for one addition is stated as Rs. 24,819. The procedural history involves the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with notices, despite calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals without adjudicating the legal and technical grounds raised, particularly concerning the validity of the assessment order under section 153C of the Act, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals without adjudicating the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, including an addition of Rs. 24,819 on account of alleged unexplained credit, as argued by the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating any of the legal/technical grounds, rendering the order void and unlawful. The assessee argued that the assessment order for AY 2012-13 was void-ab-initio and beyond the scope of assessment due to a joint satisfaction note for multiple assessment years instead of separate satisfaction for each year, as required under section 153C. The assessee also argued that the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The assessee relied on the principle that the CIT(A) must adjudicate all grounds raised. The assessee requested that the appeals be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the learned DR, had no objection to restoring the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt (virtually appeared)
For Respondent: Ms. Shababa Parveen, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT(SS)As No. 3805/Mum./2026 (Assessment Years : 2012-13) IT(SS)As No. 3806/Mum./2026 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) IT(SS)As No. 3807/Mum./2026 (Assessment Years : 2016-17) IT(SS)As No. 3808/Mum./2026 (Assessment Years : 2017-18) IT(SS)As No. 3809/Mum./2026 (Assessment Years : 2018-19) IT(SS)As No. 3810/Mum./2026 (Assessment Years : 2013-14)

Indira Chandrakant Shah, C-802, Satyam Skyline, Sola Charrasta Naranpura, Ahmedabad - 380013 ……………. Appellant PAN : BSXPS8075B

v/s

DCIT, Central Circle – 4(3) Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 ……………. Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt (virtually appeared) Revenue by : Ms. Shababa Parveen, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing – 18/06/2026 Date of Order – 30/06/2026

2 ITAs No.3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, 3809 & 3810/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19)

O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. All these appeals are filed by the assessee against orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai, [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 26.01.2026, for the assessment years 2012- 13 to 2014-15 and 2016-17 to 2018-19 arising out of assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. The assessee in all these appeals raised common grounds of appeal except the figures. For the sake of convenience, the grounds of appeal in ITA No.3805/Mum/2026 are reproduced as under: “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances in the case of the appellants case, the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the appellant is void and unlawful as the CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the legal/technical grounds despite the fact that the order of the AO for the A.Y. 2012-13 was void-ab-initio and was beyond the scope of assessment by virtue of first proviso to Section 153C of the Act. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances in the case of the appellants case, the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the appellant is void and unlawful as the CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the legal/technical grounds despite the fact that the order of the AO for the A.Y. 2012-13 was void-ab-initio as joint satisfaction was drawn for A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2018-19, both by the SAO as well as the JAO of the appellant u/s.153C of the Act whereas as per the law, for every assessment year, there must be a separate satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances in the case of the appellants case, the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the appellant is completely unlawful as the addition made by the AC was not based on any incriminating material found during search. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances in the case of the Appellant, the Order passed by the CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Act is erroneous, unlawful and unjustified as the CIT(A) has not discharged his sacred duty of addressing and disposing of any of the

3 ITAs No.3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, 3809 & 3810/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19)

legal/technical grounds which were solely connected to the root of the appellant's case. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant Ld. AO has erred in making the addition as confirmed by Hon'ble CIT(A) in the hands of the appellant of Rs. 24,819 on account of alleged unexplained credit received in bank account when no such addition is called for. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/OR withdraw any ground OR grounds of appeal either before OR during hearing of appeal.”

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee by observing that the assessee did not produce any evidence to controvert the observations made by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Ors., 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

3.

On the other hand, Ld. DR has no objection in restoring all these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating all the grounds on merits.

4 ITAs No.3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, 3809 & 3810/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19)

4.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). We observe that the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), both technical as well as on the additions made on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A), though called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, dismissed the appeals of the assessee without adjudicating any of the grounds, on the ground that the assessee did not respond to several notices. On perusal of the observations of the Ld. CIT(A), we noticed that the appeals were dismissed stating that the assessee chose not to comply with the notices during the assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings. However, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is silent as to when the notices of hearing were issued for compliance by the assessee even though it is stated that several notices were issued. It is also observed that the appeals of the assessee were rejected specifically stating that the same were dismissed without any adjudication. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal, both technical as well as on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5 ITAs No.3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, 3809 & 3810/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19)

5.

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED: 30/06/2026 Prabhat

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →