RAMANI MATHURAPRASAD MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

(c) INR.53,90,000/- disallowed on account of unexplained purchase of the property. (d) INR.4,04,998/- added due to the under-reporting of income on account of a mismatch in turnover reported in the service tax return and income tax return. (e) INR.2,95,059/- disallowed of various business expenses. 5. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order was dismissed by way of ex-parte order dated 16/07/2025.

Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had filed submissions before the Learned CIT(A) which were not considered. The Assessee was incorrectly proceeded ex-parte and the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by Learned CIT(A).

It was further submitted that the Assessee and his wife Satyvati Rammani Mishra (AACPM0414J) has jointly purchased a property. Following were also made in her hands in respect of the same property:

(a) An amount of INR.39,20,555/- was added on account of the difference between the market value and stamp duty value under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act (b) An amount of INR.1,40,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained Investment for the purchase of the said property. The duplicate additions made in the hands of the Assessee as well as his spouse and dismissal of appeal by the Learned CIT(A) by way of ex-parte order without considering the submission have resulted in grave injustice.

We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. We find that in response to Notice, dated 08/07/2025, issued by the Learned CIT(A) the Assessee had filed Submissions on 15/07/2025 vide Acknowledgement Number 323461651140725. Perusal of the same shows that the Assessee had filed written submissions and had placed on record the relevant agreement. We find that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is silent and does not dealt with the same. In Paragraph 4.2 of the order impugned, where the Learned CIT(A) has tabulated in detailed the opportunities given to the Assessee during the assessment proceedings, the Learned CIT(A) has recorded that Notice dated 08/07/2025 was not complied with by the Assessee. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Learned CIT(A) is factually incorrect. The Assessee has placed on record e-proceedings notice acknowledgement (Acknowledgement Number 323461651140725, dated 15/07/2025) to show that Notice, dated 08/07/2025, was responded to. Since, the Learned CIT(A) had admittedly not considered the said response, the Order, dated 16/07/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate a appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity. We note that additions have also been made in the hands of the spouse of the Assessee in relation to same transactions. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee has submitted that appeal preferred by the spouse of the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) is also pending adjudication. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to take into consideration the stand taken by the spouse of the Assessee in the aforesaid appeal while adjudicating the present appeal preferred by the Assessee to avoid double taxation of same income. In terms of aforesaid Ground No.1.1 to 5.2 raised by the Assessee are treated as 4

In terms of above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.