M/S FIRST STONE,MUMBAI vs. ITO - CIRCLE 20(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM M/s First Stone, Amrut Tower, 247, Telang Road Matunga, Mumbai
Per Saktijit Dey, VP:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 25.09.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY)
2017-18. 2. There is delay of 564 days in filing the appeal. Having perused the application seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit, we are satisfied that delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
M/s First Stone vs. ITO, Mumbai
When the matter was called up, none appeared for the assessee despite notice, However, considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex- parte qua the assessee after considering the submissions of learned Departmental Representative (DR) and based on materials on record. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-
“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in introducing new additions of Rs. 38,99,700/- u/. 43CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 that were never made by the Ld. AO and not a part of the assessment proceedings.
On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating on issues that were completely different from the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee
On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in violating the principles of natural justice by failing to adjudicate upon the addition of Rs. 91,54,878/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was specifically challenged by the assessee in the appeal.”
Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.26,356/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made couple of addition as under: (i) on account of estimation of profit Rs.86,54,878/-. (ii) on account of unsecured loan Rs.5,00,000/-. M/s First Stone vs. ITO, Mumbai
In aggregate the AO made addition of Rs.91,54,878/-.
5. Assessee contested the aforesaid additions by filing an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority. Vide the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative
(DR) and perused the materials on record, we find, while deciding the appeal, learned First Appellate Authority instead of deciding the issues arising in the present appeal has decided some other issue which is totally unconnected and not the subject matter of the appeal. Thus, the order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority reveals complete non-application of mind.
7. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned
First Appellate Authority and restore the issues arising in the appeal to him for de novo adjudication through a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
8. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2025. (N.K. Billaiya) (Saktijit Dey)
Accountant Member Vice President
Mumbai; Dated : 07/08/2025
Aks/-
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent M/s First Stone vs. ITO, Mumbai
The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.