SUNSOLAR RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(3)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sun
Solar
Renewable
Energy Pvt. Ltd.
211, 21stFloor, Maker Tower
– F, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai
– 400 005, Maharashtra v/s.
बनाम
Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, Circle– 3(3)(1), Room No.
609, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,
M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020,
Maharashtra
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCR8964L
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
Appellant by :
Shri Shekhar Gupta, (Virtually present)
Respondent by :
Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing
16.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement
04.11.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The instant appeal arising from the appellate order dated
30.03.2023 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 23.02.2021 for the Assessment
Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
The grounds of appeal are as under:
The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 26,77,21,000/- on account of revaluation of closing stock. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 53,11,000/- on account of administrative expenses. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 31,09,000/-on account of repairs & maintenance expenses. 3. At the outset, it was noted that the appeal is substantially delayed. In this regard, an application for condonation of the delay has been filed alongwith an affidavit of the Chairman of the assessee company Sri Kamal K. Singh who submitted that assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a loss of Rs. 7,42,22,739/-. The company filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 30.03.2023 dismissed its appeal. The company filed an appeal before the ITAT on 04.06.2024 and as such there is delay in filing the appeal by 371 days. This delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the fact that the company had stopped its business operations from the current financial year and there was no operations in the subsequent years as on today. It did not have any staff on its pay roll and as such there was nobody to download the appellate order from the e-proceedings account. The company came to know of passing of the appellate order only when the department started pressurising for payment of taxes due and P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai immediately thereafter, the appeal was filed. It is submitted that the CIT
(A) has sustained the order of the AO and considerable hardships will be caused to the company, if the delay is not condoned. This is the first time a default has been committed in filing the appeal. A lenient view may be taken and the delay may be condoned.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to certain unavoidable reasons arising from inactivity and lull in the business operations although some element of negligence is discernible. Rejection of the request for condonation may cause genuine hardship to the assessee. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble
Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.
In fact, he runs serious risk.”Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring Nil income. During the year under consideration, there was no sale / income from operations and the assessee had claimed huge carried forward loss on account of large expenses debited to the P&L
Account in comparison to the earlier year and revaluation of closing stock which was set off against Income from other sources. Details were called for by the AO by issuing notices on several occasions .However, they remained unresponded. Accordingly, various additions and disallowances were made by the AO passing the assessment order in ex parte manner due to non-compliance by the assessee. In the subsequent appellate proceedings also, the assessee did not make proper compliance as noted by the ld.CIT(A) which led to dismissal of its appeal on account of non prosecution.The assessment order was upheld.
6. The ld.AR has requested to remand the case back to the ld.CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the appeal. It is assured that the P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai assessee would comply with the notices without fail. On the other hand, the ld.DR has objected to this request claiming that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and non compliant.
7. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on records. It is observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-prosecution. He failed to adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the materials available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits after considering the material on record, even if the appellant fails to appear. However, it is equally important that it is a fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. The framework of the Act and the income tax proceedings rely heavily on the cooperation and active participation of the taxpayer.
In the present case, the assessee failed to demonstrate even a minimal level of responsibility in monitoring the e-filing portal for updates and notices related to its appeal. Despite the issuance of multiple notices under section 250 of the Act by the ld.CIT(A), no substantive response or explanation was submitted.
P a g e | 6
A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
1 The assessee’s contention of lack of staff or inability to download the appellate order cannot absolve it of its duty to follow up on its appeal. With the advent of the Faceless appeal scheme and digital advancements, the e-filing portal serves as a centralized platform for communication. It is incumbent upon the assessee to check the portal regularly and remain vigilant about pending proceedings. The failure of the assessee to take any initiative reflects gross negligence and an indifference that is unacceptable, particularly when the appeal involves significant additions and disallowances. 7.2 It is pertinent to note that the principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference which not only delayed the appellate proceedings but also burdened the judicial system. Taxpayers are expected to act responsibly, especially when significant sums and complex issues are under dispute. The inability or unwillingness to pursue the matter actively not only disrupts the judicial process but also undermines the efficient functioning of the appellate mechanism.
P a g e | 7
A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
3 In light of the above, levy of cost would be fully justified. The cost serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing their appeals and adhering to the timelines and processes laid down under the law. It also emphasizes the principle that while justice must be ensured, the system cannot cater to indolence or negligence on the part of the assessee. 8. In view of the above, following the principles of natural justice and fair play, we set aside the ex-parte order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. He is directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who, in turn, would ensure due compliance. 8.1 Considering the assessee’s failure to monitor the e-filing portal and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal as also its failure to take timely measures in filing appeal before this Bench respecting timeline laid down in the Act, we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the assessee. The cost shall be deposited to the credit of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 15 days of the receipt of this order and proof of payment shall be submitted before the ld.CIT(A).
P a g e | 8
A.Y. 2018-19
Sun Solar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2025. [Justice (Retd.) C.V. BHADANG] [PRABHASH SHANKAR] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
ददनाुंक /Date 04.11.2025
Lubhna Shaikh / Steno
आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.