ITAT Mumbai Restores Appeals Dismissed for Non-Prosecution to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication

The appeals have been filed by Vijay Dattatray Mahajan and legal heir Mr Subodh Vijay Mahajan against DCIT before ITAT Mumbai, concerning Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18, challenging assessment orders passed by CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The assessee was an individual involved in manufacturing and supplying chemicals through his proprietary concern, M/s Supra Chemicals. He filed his income tax return for AY 2013-14, declaring a total income of Rs 14,646,858. Later, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 on March 31, 2021. After completing the proceedings, the AO added Rs. 14,00,000 to the income, alleging that the assessee had provided accommodation entries to M/s USV Pvt. Ltd.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed it because the assessee did not respond properly to the hearing notices. As a result, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.

Being aggrieved by the CIT(A) decision, the assessee then approached the Tribunal. During the hearing, the AR argued that the CIT(A) was incorrect in stating that there was no compliance. The AR further explained that the assessee had died on March 13, 2025, and the legal heir was in the process of updating records and informing the department.

The AR also mentioned that replies were submitted on different hearing dates, including the death certificate and written submissions. Therefore, the appeal should not have been dismissed for non-prosecution. The representative requested that the matter be sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

After considering both sides, the tribunal said that the assessee claimed to have complied with the notices and filed submissions, which were not properly considered by the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a proper, reasoned, and speaking order after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that all issues remain open for reconsideration. As a result, the tribunal allowed all three appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes.