IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2412/MUM/2024
(Assessment Year : 2013–14)
SAMEER SUBHASH HOSMANI,
Flat no. 1, Shreenath Dham,
W.S. Road, Opp. Jana Seva Bank,
Dahisar East,
Mumbai - 400068
……………. Appellant
Maharashtra
PAN: ADIPH3121L
v/s
ITO, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai
Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai - 400051 ……………. Respondent
Maharashtra
Assessee by : Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, CA
Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing – 13/02/2025 Date of Order – 14/02/2025
ORDER
PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the
impugned order dated 05/03/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugram [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], for the
Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the
assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.
ITA No.2412-Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) 2
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 64,550/-
made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged
unexplained expenditure of the appellant towards i) Rs. 23,550/- as
estimated annual household expenses and ii) Rs. 41,000/- as alleged cash
payment made to the builder over the agreement value.
3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,03,500/-
made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged
unexplained money deposited in the bank account.
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 732/- made
by the Assessing Officer u/s 56 of the Act on account of bank interest.
5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,000/-
made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged difference noticed by
him in salary income.
6. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had sufficient sources
to augment his expenses and deposits made in the bank.
7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 of
the Act was issued pursuant to the information received from DDIT(Inv) Pune
that during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in case of Ameya
Builders and Property Developers at Virar on 31.07.2014 certain papers were
seized and it was found that the appellant had paid Rs. 41,000/- in cash
during the previous year under consideration which had escaped assessment.
As such, the Assessing Officer ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the
Act as per the provisions of the Act and the Assessing Officer had no authority
to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act.
8. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the various additions made
to the income of the appellant are based on presumption, suspicion, surmises
and without any evidence.
9. The order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, without jurisdiction and in
violation of principles of natural justice.
10. The appellant carves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of
the foregoing grounds of appeal.”
3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the
material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident
that the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the
non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that the learned
Addl./Joint CIT(A) merely on the basis of non-compliance with notices,
dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds
ITA No.2412-Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) 3
raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act.
We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016]
69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held
that Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-
prosecution of appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and
proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of
the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on
merits. We further direct that no order shall be passed without affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to
appear before the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) on all the hearing dates as may
be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the
learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances
raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at
this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for
statistical purposes.
4. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/02/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
-GIRISH AGRAWAL SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 14/02/2025
Biswajit
ITA No.2412-Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) 4
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and
(5) Guard file.
True Copy By Order
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai
