M/S. BAGAL TAX LAW SERVICES LLP ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(3)(1), 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 found that the AO's final computation of taxable income was inconsistent with the assessment order. Thus, the case was remanded back to the AO for recomputation of taxable income in accordance with the original assessment order.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) completed a scrutiny assessment accepting the assessee's claim of long-term capital loss and return of income. However, the final computation of taxable income showed a discrepancy. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance, without addressing the merits of the case.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO's final computation of taxable income was consistent with the assessment order, and if the Ld. Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits of the discrepancy.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2022-23.
M/s. Bagal Tax Law Services LLP 2. Admittedly, the AO vide assessment order dated 11.03.2024 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, in the scrutiny assessment under CASS, accepted the claim of loss by the Assessee with regard to the long term capital gain of -Rs.65,83,486/- as well as, accepted the return of income and completed the assessment. However, in the final computation of taxable income, the AO mentioned nothing which amounts to non-application of mind. Though the Assessee has challenged the said assessment order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of giving four opportunities the Assessee made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances and by holding that the Assessee failed to produce any substantial evidence to over turn the decision made by the AO in impugned assessment order, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Assessee by construing ‘that the Assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal and therefore he is refraining from discussion and decision on the grounds of appeal on merit.’
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has demonstrated from the calculation sheet (page no. 13 to 16 of paper book) wherein the AO has determined the total income of the Assessee at Rs.14,77,530/- which according to the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee is neither correct nor in sync/consonance with the assessment order, whereby the final determination has been made by the assessing officer but without final computing the taxable income. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the said factual facts are not disputed by the Ld. DR as well, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for recomputation of taxable income, in accordance with the assessment order and/or determination made by him, without
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
