BHARAT AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

ITA 134/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and the appellant's written submission was not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and pass a fresh order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 256 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 25 lakhs as long-term capital gain after determining the cost of tenancy rights as Nil, citing that the appellant did not purchase these rights from a previous owner. The AO's order was ex-parte as the appellant did not respond to a draft assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of tenancy rights can be considered Nil without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and if the subsequent orders passed ex-parte are sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 55(2)(a),Section 48,Section 49,Section 270A,Section 54EC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Pronounced: 25/07/2025

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

In this above cited case, the appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 256 days. During the proceedings before the ITAT, it is observed that nobody represented the case on behalf of appellant nor there is any application for adjournment.

2.

During the hearing before the ITAT, none was present on behalf of the appellant. From the record it is observed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was served on time and sent to his former tax consultant. So, the appellant claims to have obtained a physical copy and filed the appeal. As the delay was unintentional and bonafide, it was pleaded that the delay may be condoned and appeal may be decided on merits. The Ld. DR opposed the de

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 55(2)(a)

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 55(2)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →