FERROSTONECRETE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7656/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2026AY 2008-09Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no option but to dismiss the appeal due to the non-submission of documents and non-response to notices. However, considering the assessee's readiness to furnish the documents now, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeals for non-submission of required documents. The CIT(A) had issued notices for the same, but the assessee did not respond. The ITAT noted that essential documents like Form No. 35, assessment order, and grounds of appeal were not uploaded or physically submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal summarily without deciding on merits due to non-submission of documents by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha kaushk, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 30.01.2026

Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1.

1. The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 29.09.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the A.Ys 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take A.Y 2008-09 as lead case and facts narrated therein.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without addressing the dis-allowances on merits of the appeal. The Appellant therefore prays that the appeal may be set aside and restore back to the CIT(A) to decide on the merits. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 85,90,297/- alleged non genuine purchases u/s.

69.

The Appellant therefore prays that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 85,90,297/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal

on OR before the final hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in summarily dismissing the appeal without addressing the disallowance on the merits.

3.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that although assessee had filed appeal, but on the appeal module, the uploaded in the system. Therefore, the assessee was specifically asked by Ld. CIT(A) to provide copies of Form No 35, Assessment Order under appeal, Grounds of appeal and Statement of Facts. However, the assessee has not responded to the notices sent by the AO.

4.

Since the relevant details / documents such as Form 35, order of assessment, grounds of appeal were neither found in the ITBA module nor in the physical form and even assessee but assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the revenue hence Ld. CIT(A) had no option except to dismissing the appeal.

5. Now before us, the assessee submitted that he is ready to furnish all the documents filed by them and requested to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits.

6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issue, we are of the view that matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the said issue afresh once the assessee placed on record the above mentioned documents / details and after providing assessee.

6. Before parting, we 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.

Ground No. 2 & 3 Since we have already restored the 7. matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh, thus the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes infructuous in view of our above finding on ground No. 1.

8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. 7657/Mum/2025, A.Y 2009-10

8.

As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to A.Y 2008-09 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal

of the present appeal also stands allowed for statistical purposes.

9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2026 (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 30/01/2026 KRK, Sr. PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु"बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित ////

1.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →