VICKY BIPIN GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(5), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEEVicky Bipin Gala 124/8, 1st Floor, Block No.8, Vatsalganga Bldg, Plot No.124 Road No.24A, Sion (West), Mumbai-400 022 PAN: AGXPG4830F vs ITO Ward-41(1)(5), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Kurla-400051 APPELLANT
Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2013-
14, date of order 21/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 22/05/2023. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the documents available on record. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 595, which has been duly taken on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- was made under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, treating the same as unexplained investment, and consequentially taxed under section 115BBE. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.
CIT(A).
It was argued that the assessee had, in compliance with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 12.03.2025, filed a detailed written submission along with supporting annexures through the online portal on 21.03.2025. The said submissions are placed in the assessee’s paper book at APB pages 592 to 595. Specific reference was invited to APB page 595, which contains the acknowledgment of online submission before the Ld. CIT(A). However, without considering these submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass the impugned ex- parte order on the very same date, thereby denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. DR, while supporting the orders of the revenue authorities, did not raise any serious objection to the factual contention of the assessee. 5. In our considered view, it is an undisputed fact that the notice was issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee duly complied by filing written submissions with annexures, as evidenced by the documents at APB pages 592 to 595. The Ld. DR has also fairly conceded that such filing had indeed been made prior to the passing of the appellate order. However, the Ld. CIT(A), without adverting to these submissions, passed the order ex-parte on the same day. In the given circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the written submissions and annexures already filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case so as not to cause any prejudice to the proceedings before the first appellate authority. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh appellate order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No.3739/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th day of September 2025. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 04/09/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.