SUDHARANI BASAK EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THANE vs. ITO(EXEMPTION)-2(2), MUMBAI

(AY 2017-18) Sudharani Basak Educational Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 345, First Floor, C wing Vashi Plaza, Vs. 2(3), Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, Vashi S.O.(Thane), Room No. 513, 5th Floor, Navi Mumbai 400703 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, PAN No. AAETS8982P Parel 400012 Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Shreyash Shah (Virtual) & Shri Kunal Shah-Ars Department represented by Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR. Date of hearing 20/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/03/2025 ORDER U/S. 250 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These three appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2017-18. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal

, certain facts in all the cases are similar, except various of figure of addition on account of denial of application of income under section 11 of Income Tax Act (Act) therefore, with the consent of parties all the appeals were clubbed and heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, facts in 2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 are treated as dead case.

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The Ld. AR. of the assessee submits that Assessing Officer has passed ex , 604 & 601/MUM/2025 (AY: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2017-18) parte order without discussing merit of the case. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not inconsonance with the provision of Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that on similar search of fact, appeal for Assessment Year 2016-2017 was heard on 11/03/2025, vide and had already been restored that to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this appeal including two other connected may also be restored back to the file of ld CIT(A) with similar direction.

3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR. for the revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR. submits that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee to furnish its submission. The assessee came to file the written submission; thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has no option except to decide the matter on the basis of materials available on record.

4. We have considered the rival submissions of the both the parties and perused the materials available on record carefully. We find that in para-5 of his order ld CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee was seeking time for filing reply and not file written submissions on ITBA (Income Tax Business Application) Portal and ultimately dismissed the appeal of assessee by taking view that the assessee has not controverted the facts recorded by Assessing Officer. We find that on similar search of fact, against similar set of facts, the appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 in had already been restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11/03/2025. Therefore, following the principal of consistency, this appeal is also restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in similar direction.