NAZIFA MOHHAMMEDASIM KAMALKHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2738/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the assessed income at Rs. 9,02,540/- against the returned income of Rs. 4,52,562/-. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to an unintentional communication gap.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and whether the rejection of the claim under Section 44ADA and addition of unexplained money were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 44ADA,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Hearing: 17.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 17.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN [J.M.]:- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-53 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessed income at Rs. 9,02,540/- as against the returned income at Rs.4,52,562/-

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without granting sufficient and opportunity without considering the adjournment application of the appellant and hence, his order is in violation of the principle of natural justice.

3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, 9. as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection of the appellant's claim of income amounting to ₹4,52,562 under Section 44ADA and in confirming the addition of ₹9,02,542 made by the AO under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money."

3.

At the very outset, I notice that the assessee was exparte before the Ld. CIT(A), and in this regard, Ld. AR submitted that the absence of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was unintentional as there was a communication gap between the assessee and her representative. Therefore, because of this, the assessee could not put effective representation before the Ld. CIT(A). The said fact placed by the assessee has been contested strongly by the Ld. DR.

4.

Be that as it may, in my view, the interest of justice could be met in case the assessee is provided one more opportunity of hearing. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

5.

Before parting, I make it clear that the decision to restore the matter back to file Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or A.Y. 2021-22 Nazifa Mohhammedasim Kamalkhan expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 44ADA

All 98 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44ADA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →