ORANGE FISH ENTERTAINMENT PRVITE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE () Assessment Year: 2013-14
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
11.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
The learn upholding th Provision for per consistent 2. The learn upholding the arising on ac Hindustan Un Information/F was on acc Hindustan Un The conclusio on conjunctur 2. At the outset submitted that the a Commissioner of Inc assessee, however, co CIT(A) could not be therefore, no represe proceedings. The le recorded that sever different dates callin adjournments and adverse consequence CIT(A), thereafter, di was not interested assessment order di finding of the Ld. CIT Orange Fish ITA ned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe he disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- o License Fees. The 4 Company has made tly followed accounting policy. ned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe e addition of Rs. 74,25,568/- as undisc ccount of difference between the gross nilever Limited as per books of account a Form 26AS. It is submitted that the afores count of erroneous data entry in TD nilever Limited which was subsequently r on arrived at by the Learned CIT(A) is has res and surmises and is contrary to the , the learned Departmental assessee remained ex parte bef ome-tax (Appeals). The learned ontended that the notices issued e effectively served upon the entation could be made durin earned CIT(A), while dismissin ral notices were issued to th ng for submissions and that, d a final opportunity specifica es, the assessee failed to respon smissed the appeal, holding th d in prosecuting the same id not suffer from any infirmit T(A) is reproduced as under: Entertainment Pvt. Ltd 2 A No. 5213/MUM/2025 eals) erred in on account of e provision as eals) erred in closed income receipts from and as per AIR said difference DS Return by rectified. sty and based facts. Representative fore the learned counsel for the d by the learned assessee and, ng the appellate ng the appeal, he assessee on despite grant of ally warning of nd. The learned hat the assessee and that the ty. The relevant
“4.1 During t notices on 19
requiring sub reply submit
Subsequently granted throu compliance d explicitly stat on the points frame mentio case being d further highli ensure a fair this opportun notice.
4.2 In this co judicial prono
"natural justi situations, ra ends i.e. from may, howeve words, what course, what
Lord Esher M observed: "Na wrong." In thi
Justice Krish ritualistic, effe consideration culminating i sufficient to s relevantly and to the affect perverted into treated as a reference to t in all conscien have not bee not unspeaki justice' breac but it is the reasons best
Despite provid the principle
Orange Fish
ITA the appellate proceedings, the appellan
9.04.2017, 18.01.2018, 19.01.2018 an bmission of a response. However, in the tted and adjournment sought by th y, in the interest of natural justice, an ugh notices dated 07.05.2025 issued to a date 13.05.2025 to submit the reply ted: "You are requested to furnish your d s (mentioned in the notice) within the s oned in the notice. Non-compliance may decided on merits or dismissed accordi ighted that timely submission of the res and just examination of the appellant's ity, the appellant once again failed to co ontext, reference may be made to the ra ouncements where it has been held that:
ice are not codified nor are they unv ather they are flexible. It has to be adhe m the assessee as well as from the au er, be summarized in one word: 'fairn they require is fairness by the authority is fair would depend on the situation an M.R. in Voinet vs. Barrett (1885) 55
atural justice is the natural sense of wha is context, we may refer to observations hna lyer J..... opportunity should be fective and not illusory and must be follo n of the explanation offered and the mater n an order which discloses reasons for show that the mind of the authority has d rationally and without reliance on facts ted party. Natural justice, must warn o anything unnatural or unjust and canno a set of dogmatic prescriptions applic the circumstances of the case. The quest nce have you been fair in dealing with tha en arbitrary, not absent-minded, not un ng, you cannot deny that there has bee ched, rather fullest natural justice has b person who has not availed any cha known to him."
ding ample opportunities of being heard of natural justice, the assessee chose
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd
3
A No. 5213/MUM/2025
nt was issued d 08.01.2021
e response no he appellant.
n adjournment appellant with y. The notice etailed replies specified time y result in the ingly." It was sponse would case. Despite omply with the atio of various varying in all ered from both uthority. They ness'. In other concerned. Of nd the context.
L.J. QB 39, at is right and of the Hon'ble real and not owed by a fair rials available, r the decision s been applied s not furnished n, cannot be ot therefore be cable without tion merely is, at man? If you nreasonable or en no 'natural been followed ances for the and following not avail the same by fai authority.
4.3 The afore is not interes non-dormienti vigilant and n case.
The Hon'ble
2002-03 in th following the Bhattacharjee not mean me same.
Considering t the Assessin thoroughly an observed in Consequently hereby dismis
In the result, t
3. We have caref perused the materia assessee filed a Pa submitted that issue not in dispute tha submissions before opportunities. Howe appellate authority u the appeal on merits points for determinat such decision.
Orange Fish
ITA iling to comply with the notices of said mentioned circumstances show that sted in pursuing its appeal. The maxim ibus jura subvenunť i.e. the law assists t not those who sleep over their right, is app
ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/CHD/200
he case of M/s Chhabra Land & Hous decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in th e & other 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the erely filing of the appeal but effectively the above facts and material on record, ng Officer has made the addition on nalyzing the facts of the case. No infirm the order passed by the Asses y, the appeal filed by the assessee lacks ssed.
the appeal of the assessee stands dismis fully considered the rival su al placed on record. The Ld.
aper Book containing pages might be decided on the merit at the assessee did not fil e the learned
CIT(A) des ver, the statutory duty cast under section 250(6) of the Act s by passing a speaking order, tion, the decision thereon, and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd
4
A No. 5213/MUM/2025
the appellant t the appellant m 'vigilantibus those who are plicable in this 05 for the AY sing Ltd. after e case of B.N.
e appeal does pursuing the it is held that n merits after mity or error is ssing
Officer.
s merit and is ssed.”
ubmissions and counsel for the 1 to 247 and of the case. It is le any written spite repeated upon the first is to dispose of setting out the the reasons for 3.1 The power exer nature. It is well-set due application of m order which merely proceeds to affirm examination of the is section 250(6) of the 3.2 The recording o law and is a necessa making by judicial a order is inherently v the right to know th appellate scrutiny illu
3.3 While the condu cannot be approved, authority of its stat merits. Principles of granting opportunity order passed witho assessment and the g
3.4 In view of the a opinion that the orde the requirements of Orange Fish
ITA cised by the learned CIT(A) is q ttled that a quasi-judicial orde mind and must be supported records non-appearance of the m the assessment, withou ssues on merits, does not meet
Act.
f reasons is an indispensable pa ary safeguard against arbitrarin and quasi-judicial authorities.
vulnerable, as it deprives the a he basis of the decision and r usory.
uct of the assessee in not respon such conduct does not absolv tutory obligation to adjudicate f natural justice require fairne but also in consideration and a out discussing the issues ar grounds of appeal cannot be sus above legal position, we are of er passed by the learned CIT(A) f section 250(6) of the Act. A Entertainment Pvt. Ltd
5
A No. 5213/MUM/2025
quasi-judicial in r must disclose by reasons. An e appellant and ut independent the mandate of art of the rule of ness in decision-
An unreasoned affected party of renders effective nding to notices ve the appellate the appeal on ess not only in adjudication. An rising from the stained in law.
f the considered does not satisfy
Accordingly, the impugned order is se the learned CIT(A) w on merits by passing with law, after grant the assessee.
3.5 The ground of a statistical purposes.
4. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (ANIKESH BA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 16/12/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Orange Fish
ITA et aside and the matter is restor with a direction to adjudicate th g a reasoned and speaking orde ting reasonable opportunity of appeal of the assessee is accordi the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 16/ ANERJEE)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd
6
A No. 5213/MUM/2025
red to the file of he appeal afresh er in accordance being heard to ingly allowed for is allowed for 12/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai