M/S FIRST STONE,MUMBAI vs. ITO - CIRCLE 20(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without addressing the specific issues raised by the assessee, indicating a non-application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issues for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18, which was picked up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 86,54,878/- on account of estimated profit and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan, totaling Rs. 91,54,878/-. The assessee appealed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the First Appellate Authority erred by failing to adjudicate the grounds of appeal and instead deciding unrelated issues, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM
O R D E R 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.
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. 2. 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
3. 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.”
4. 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/-.
In aggregate the AO made addition of Rs.91,54,878/-.
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.
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.
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.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2025.
More judgments on Section 43CA
- Ladam Homes Private Limited, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5788/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- M/S Suraj & Associates, Mumbai vs ACIT 31(3) / Now ACIT 41(4)(1), MumbaiITA 408/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Susneh Infrapark Private Limited, MumbaiITA 9262/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central… vs Sushneh Infrapark Private Limited, MumbaiITA 9261/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Susneh Infrapark Private Limited, MumbaiITA 9260/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
