YOGESH RAVINDRA MATHURIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 42(1)(1), MUMBAI
| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ायपीठ, मुंबई |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“G” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 2685/Mum/2025
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Yogesh Ravindra Mathuria
503, Trishul Heights
Next to Blue Ocean CHS
Ekta Nagar
Kandivali (W)
Mumbai – 400067
[PAN: AADPM2393M]
Vs
DCIT – 42(1)(1), Mumbai
अपीलाथ/ (Appellant)
यथ/ (Respondent)
Assessee by :
Shri Viraj Mehta, A/R
Revenue by :
Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/07/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025
आदेश/O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 15/04/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’]
pertaining to AY 2010-11. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:-
“1) Ground No. 1: Violation of Natural Justice
On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Said addition confirmed is bad in law and liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice.
2) Ground No. 2: Appeal filed within statutory time limit
On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that appeal filed is delayed by 56 days and no explanation has been offered however, there is no delay is filing the appeal. Said rejection of appeal is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice.
I.T.A. No. 2685/Mum/2025
3) Without prejudice to above ground, Ground No. 3: Condonation of Delay
On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on account that no condonation of delay for filing appeal is filed. Said denial is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice.
4) Ground No. 4: Addition as IFHP of Rs. 50,400/-
On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head House Property of Rs. 50,400/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 50,400/-.
5) Ground No. 5: LTCG of Rs. 17,13,966/-
On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head LTCG of Rs. 17,13,966/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 17,13,966/-.
6) Ground No. 6: STCG of Rs. 43,03,521/-
On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head STCG of Rs. 43,03,521/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 43,03,521/-.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. The order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there was delay in filing the appeal by 56 days. The ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that the assessee ought to have satisfactorily explained the dela in filing the appeal. However, before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal and because the assessee could not receive the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A), the proceedings, could not be attended. We further find that on the pretext that the appeal was barred by limitation, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.
I.T.A. No. 2685/Mum/2025
We are of the considered opinion that if the claim of the assessee was that there was no delay in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee to justify his stand. Without adjudicating the appeal and without considering the merits of the case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, which is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th July, 2025 at Mumbai. (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 25/07/2025
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER