" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.M. DOSS, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7982/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year :2018-19) Leelavathi Suresh Kunder K P D & Associates 201-202, Comet Building, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra West Mumbai-400 050 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai PAN/GIR No.ARRPK2834Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Kirit Dedhia, CA Revenue by Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR DR Date of Hearing 28/09/2026 Date of Pronouncement 28/09/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“learned CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2018–19, arising from the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 7982/Mum/2026 Leelavathi Suresh Kunder 2 tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer determined the assessee’s total income at ₹9,32,657, as against the returned income of ₹1,23,450. 2. The learned counsel submitted that the appeal was disposed of ex parte without affording the assessee adequate time to place the relevant facts and supporting material before the learned CIT(A). In particular, it was pointed out that the first hearing notice was issued on 10.04.2026 and the appellate order was passed on 21.05.2026—an interval of approximately six weeks, or 41 days. The learned counsel accordingly requested that the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. We have considered the submission and perused the impugned order. The learned CIT(A) records that hearing notices were issued on 10.04.2026, 29.04.2026, 07.05.2026 and 14.05.2026, and that the assessee had earlier sought additional time. The record thus shows that more than one notice was issued; however, the appeal was instituted on 23.03.2026 and disposed of on 21.05.2026, with the first hearing notice issued on 10.04.2026. Having regard to the relatively short period available to the assessee to respond to the notices and place the relevant material on record, and to the nature of the grounds raised, we consider it appropriate to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 7982/Mum/2026 Leelavathi Suresh Kunder 3 provide one further effective opportunity for the appeal to be decided on its merits. 4. The grounds before the learned CIT(A) concerned, inter alia, the year of taxability of capital gains arising from a redevelopment arrangement, the applicability of section 45(5A), and the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54. The impugned order, however, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without examining these grounds on their merits. An appeal is required to be disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with section 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances of this case, the interests of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the learned CIT(A) for consideration and decision on the issues raised. 5. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish the relevant material in support of her case. We express no opinion on the merits of the grounds, which shall be decided independently by the learned CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 7982/Mum/2026 Leelavathi Suresh Kunder 4 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th September, 2026. Sd/- (G.M. DOSS) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 28/09/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "