BALAJI INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Balaji Investment
306, Mahavir Complex,
Derasar lane, MG Road,
Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai –
400077. Vs.
ITO – 27(1)(1)
Tower No. 6, Rly Stn
Complex
Vashi - 400071
PAN/GIR No. AAIFB5281G
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by Mr. Aditya Ramachandran
Revenue by Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
10.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement
11.03.2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order 10.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2011-
12. 2. At the very outset, I noticed that the present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.
CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed
2
Balaji Investment, Mumbai on account of the fact that the same was not filed within the time prescribed under the act.
In this regard, Ld.AR submitted that assessee had filed a detailed written submissions dated 5/7/2024. It was further submitted that these submissions were not at all considered by Ld. CIT(A).
I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgement cited before me and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records, I noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the same was not filed within limitation and while passing the said order Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mention that the assessee has neither accepted nor forwarded the reasons for the delay, even no documentary evidence in support of the delay was filed.
Whereas, assessee has placed on record detailed submissions dated 05.07.2024, which also mentions bank statement pertaining to the relevant period, partnership dissolution deed and the mail confirmation from the stock
3
Balaji Investment, Mumbai exchange stating that no such transaction has been executed under the PAN of the assessee.
Be that as it may, in my view, when once the assessee has filed a detailed written submissions before the concerned authority, therefore, the said authority is duty- bound under law to consider the said reply and to adjudicate the issues on merit by passing speaking order, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, considering the said fact, I am of the view that in the above circumstances the present matter needs to be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to consider the reply filed by the assessee dated 05.07.2024 and passed a fresh speaking order, needless to mention, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In terms of above directions, the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
4
Balaji Investment, Mumbai
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 11/03/2025
KRK, PS
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.