CEEKEPEE ENGINEERING WORKS PRIAVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -9(2)(2), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA 4176/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) CEEKEPEE ENGINEERING WORKS INCOME TAX OFFICER -9(2)(2) PRIAVATE LIMITED AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K ROAD, 501-B BHAGIRATHI NIWAS ANDHERI MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA Vs. KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400069, MAHARASHTRA Appellant Respondent

PAN No. AAACC1807A

Appellant represented by: Shri Vijay Dubey Respondent represented by: Shri M.P. Singh - Sr.AR

Date of conclusion of hearing: 11-08-2026 Date of pronouncement: 02-09-2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 6th March 2023 passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi for assessment year 2014-15,

“Ground No. 1. Ex-parte order passed due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai, passed an ex-parte order dated 06-03-2023 due to non- attendance/non-compliance on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant submits that the non-attendance was neither intentional nor deliberate. The key personnel handling the tax and legal matters of the Company was suffering from serious and life-threatening illness during the relevant period. Consequently, the Company was unable to properly attend to the appellate proceedings and comply with the notices.

The circumstances were beyond the reasonable control of the Appellant and matter being decided ex-parte.` Ground No. 2 Condonation of delay The Appellant respectfully requests your Honours to condone the delay of approximately 831 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Appellant was not aware of the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) within the relevant period, as the communications/notices were not effectively brought to the attention of the persons responsible for handling the Company's tax matters. The detailed reasons for the delay are explained in the affidavit duly affirmed and signed by the Director of the Appellant Company, which is being already submitted separately on dated 09. 06-2026. The Appellant therefore humbly prays that the delay may kindly be condoned considering the genuine and unavoidable circumstances explained in the accompanying affidavit. Ground No.3 Original appeal before the learned CIT(A) The Appellant had originally filed an appeal on 30-01-2017 against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant submits that the Company had taken steps to pursue its statutory remedy. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances concerning the person handling the Company's legal and tax matters, the subsequent appellate proceedings could not be properly attended. It is further submitted that no physical notice was received by the Appellant at the relevant time. Certain communications were sent to an email ID belonging to another person who was no longer in contact with the Company/persons responsible for the matter, resulting in the Appellant remaining unaware of the proceedings. Ground No. 4 Serious illness and subsequent demise of key personnel The key person responsible for looking after the Company's legal and tax matters, Mrs. Smita K. Desai, was suffering from a serious illness during the relevant period. Due to her illness, she was unable to properly attend to the Company's pending legal and tax matters. Unfortunately, she subsequently expired on 27- 11-2025. The Appellant is submitting, for the kind consideration of your Honours, the relevant supporting communication/document from the doctor who was treating/attending to her, to substantiate the circumstances explained above. The Appellant respectfully submits that these circumstances were genuine, unavoidable and beyond the control of the Company. Ground No. 5 Principles of natural justice The Appellant respectfully submits that substantial prejudice would be caused to the Company if the matter is not restored for consideration on merits. The Appellant has a genuine grievance against the assessment and the consequential appellate proceedings and seeks an effective opportunity to present its case before the competent authority. The Appellant therefore humbly requests your Honours to consider the matter in the interest of natural justice, fairness and substantial justice, particularly in view of the exceptional circumstances explained above.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 26th September 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,80,060/- which was subsequently revised on 13th February 2016 retaining the same income. The return was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") was issued and duly served upon the assessee.

4.1. Firstly, in respect of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,03,11,484/-. Relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced in Para 3.1 to Para 3.5 of the Assessing Officer's order.

4.2. Secondly, addition of disallowance of the Excise Duty amount of Rs. 36.55 lakhs holding that same was not paid within the due date of filing of the return of income and therefore same was disallowed in terms of section 43B. Relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced in Para 4 of the Assessing Officer's order.

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default, observing as under:

“3. Various notices of hearing under section 250 of the Act were issued to the appellant i.e. on 24.01.2019. 04.12.2019. 25.02 2020. of the Act vide which the appellant was requested to furnish written 08.01.2021. 23.12.2022. 25.01.2023 and 10.02.2023 under section 250 submissions online on or before 19.02.2019. 12.12.2019 05.03.2020. 03.03.2021. 30.12.2022. 01.02.2023 and 17.02.2023 respectively. However, no reply has been filed by the appellant in the appeal proceedings. 4 It is also important to mention that the notices were sent to the email provided by the appellant. However, on no receipt of reply, the department's database was searched and latest return was looked into to find out if there is any other email available for communication with the appellant. However, nothing other than the details given by the appellant was found. 5. It has been held in various decisions that where the assessee has not made any compliance, appeal can be decided on material available on records. 5.1 In the case of CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR 461 it was held that ". appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it." 5.2 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol v/s. Union of India (Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 20091 clearly states, that every court judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a matter between two For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quoting decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas. AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below: "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses." 5.3 The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as:- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the unction of the court or, for that matter of a judicial or quasi judicial body. In the absence of the complainant therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non-appearance of the complainant." 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the proposition that where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently absent and the Tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 5.5 The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt.19.12.2001) in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had dismissed appeal for non-attendance at hearings, inferring that assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal. Thereafter in another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.3013/Del/2011 date of order 20.12.2011), the Hon'ble ITAT had dismissed the appeal for non-attendance at hearings. 5.6 In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee for his negligence. When the assessee is non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and lack of genuineness. 6. Therefore, as the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities, this appeal is being decided on the basis of facts available on record DETERMINATION AND DECISION 7. Held: During the course of appeal proceedings, no reply has been filed by the appellant. I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and considered the facts of the case. The appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated above. No details, documents or submission have been provided by the appellant substantiating its grounds of appeal. The mere facts mentioned in Form No. 35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence submissions. The AO has passed a very reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. All the grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed.” 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) came to be disposed of ex parte on account of circumstances beyond the effective control of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 752 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the person entrusted with the company's tax and legal matters was suffering from serious illness and was consequently unable to attend to the pending appellate proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the assessee was not effectively aware of the notices issued during the relevant period. An affidavit of the Director together with medical evidence concerning the illness and subsequent demise of the said person, has been placed on record. The learned counsel for the assessee filed a certificate from the registered medical doctor in support of the contention that Smita K. Desai was suffering from serious health issues and succumbed to death on 27 November 2023. It was accordingly prayed that the delay in approaching the Tribunal be condoned and the matter be restored for adjudication on merits.

6.1 The learned Departmental Representative opposed the prayer, pointing out that several opportunities had been afforded by the learned CIT(A), but the assessee failed to comply with the notices and did not pursue the appeal.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 02/09/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai