SACHIN KISHOR SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF

ITA 7372/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2026AY 2023-24Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7373/MUM/2025 (AY: 2022-23) ITA No. 7372/MUM/ 2025 (AY: 2023-24) (Hybrid hearing) Sachin Kishor Sheth Vs ITO,Ward-42(1)(5), Mumbai Duplex No. 1, Ground & 1st Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, C41-43, Avenue Plot No. 142, Near Tilak College 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Ground, Navi Mumbai, Vashi, Thane, BKC, Gilban Area, BKC, Bandra Maharashtra – 400703. East, Mumbai – 400051. [PAN: ASXPS0171M] 1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's appeals against the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2022-23 and 2023-24 were clubbed and heard together. The assessee claimed that they could not furnish written submissions before the CIT(A) due to paucity of time as their staff was busy with audit work.

Held

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. The assessee sought another opportunity to contest the case on merit, while the Revenue argued that a reasonable opportunity was already provided. The Tribunal found that the assessee was interested in pursuing the appeals on merit and decided to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A).

Key Issues

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merit before the CIT(A) after the appeals were dismissed ex-parte.

Sections Cited

254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi both dated 17.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY)

2022-23 & 2023-24 respectively. Certain facts in both the appeals are common; the assessee has raised similar ground of appeal. Thus, with the consent of both the parties, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. Both the appeals of assessee was dismissed by ld CIT(A) in ex-parte order.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee could not furnish written submission before ld. CIT(A) due to paucity of time as it was September and October, 2025 wherein the majority of staff from the office of representative of assessee was busy in Audit work. The ld AR of the assessee submits that one more opportunity may be allowed to assessee to contest the case on merit. He under takes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee was allowed reasonable and sufficient opportunity. The excuse / explanation offered by assessee is not acceptable. In case the Hon’ble Bench is convinced with the explanation of assessee, the assessee may be given direction not to make default in future.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. I find that assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A), appeal on 15.05.2025 and was dismissed in ex-parte order dated 17.10.2025. Considering the facts of the case that the assessee is interested to pursue his appeals on merit, therefore, both the appeals are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal on merit. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order, the assessing officer shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to assessee.

The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant making timely compliance.