OMAR ISMAIL SOLANKI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(2)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a fundamental requirement of appellate adjudication is to provide the assessee with a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. Additionally, appellate orders must demonstrate due application of mind to the grounds raised and provide reasons for the conclusions. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee's grievance regarding the lack of an effective hearing and the absence of reasoned orders was valid. Consequently, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) were set aside in the interest of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, consider any necessary documentary evidence the assessee wished to place on record, and pass a speaking and reasoned order dealing with all grounds raised. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or other issues, leaving them open for the learned CIT(A)'s adjudication. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Omar Ismail Solanki, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, for Assessment Years (AY) 2020-21 and 2021-22. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues. The assessee contended that the NFAC orders were passed without providing an effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee also argued that the NFAC failed to deal with the grounds of appeal in a reasoned manner and did not pass speaking orders. The NFAC's order for AY 2020-21 partly set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for verifying the computation of income from sale of properties, while upholding additions on account of purchases, cash deposits, and disallowance of society charges.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) are sustainable in law, having been passed without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) has dealt with the grounds raised by the assessee in an appropriate manner and recorded reasoned findings, thereby passing speaking and reasoned orders? Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned orders were passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, thus breaching principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - The learned CIT(A) did not deal with the grounds raised appropriately and failed to record reasoned findings, rendering the orders non-speaking and unsustainable. - The assessee should be allowed an effective opportunity to present documentary evidence and have the issues adjudicated afresh. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned orders but could not controvert the assessee's grievance regarding the lack of effective hearing and reasoned orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. DEBJANI MITRA NEOGY
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ITA 3872/MUM/2026 OMAR ISMAIL SOLANKI
PER SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals by the assessee are directed against order dated 1st January 2026 and 4th January 2026, passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [in short “the learned CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. A common issue-in-dispute is
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
