ROCHE DIABETES CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3845/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recalling of the order by providing reasons for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal. No written submissions were filed either. The tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted reasonable opportunities to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear despite opportunities. The grounds also raised issues regarding the CIT(A)'s rejection of condonation, not considering the appeal on merits, and incorrect additions/disallowances made by the AO/CPC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 115BAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3845/MUM/2026 (AY: 2020-21) Roche Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax - 3(1)(1) 146-B, 166A, Unit No. 7,8,9 8th Floor, R City Office, R City Mall, Lal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Badhadur Shastri Marg, Ghatkopar Mumbai-400020. West S.O., Mumbai-400086. PAN/GIR No: AAHCR4827Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Sujatha Iyyanger (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 18.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.08.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of

Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT, Raipur, dated 23.01.2026 for the assessment year

(AY) 2020-21.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the condonation application of the appellant. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) have erred by not considering the appeal on merits and thereby not granting relief to the appellant.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer/Centralized Processing Centre ["Ld. AO/CPC"] had erred in 1

ITA No.3845/MUM/2026 Roche Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. passing order u/s 154 without providing an opportunity of being heard and without serving an intimation to the appellant proposing the adjustments sought to be made.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting relief against the incorrect addition made by the Ld. AO/CPC in the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, wherein income was wrongly considered at INR 32,58,80,390/-instead of INR 28,24,07,110/- as declared in the return of income filed by the Appellant on account of the following:

a) Disallowance of INR 1,896/ u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act while passing the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act.

b) Disallowance of INR 4,34,71,382/- u/s 43B of the Act while passing the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting relief in respect of the incorrect rate of 30% applied by the Ld. AO /CPC instead of the rate of 22% u/s 115BAA of the Act.”

3.

The case was fixed for hearing on 18.06.2026; but, none appeared on

behalf of the assessee. The case was thereafter adjourned to 18.08.2026 for

hearing. However, none appeared before the Tribunal nor any request for

adjournment was filed. The appellant has also not filed any written submission

and corroborative details in support of the grounds of appeal. Therefore, no

useful purpose will be served in prolonging the litigation. The Hon’ble Bombay

High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of India (Central Excise Appeal No.

62 of 2009) has held that it is axiomatic that no Court or Tribunal is supposed to

continue proceedings before it when the party who has moved it has not

appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent

ITA No.3845/MUM/2026 Roche Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. power which every Tribunal possess. The Hon’ble High Court referred to the

decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 206

while deciding the case. It is now well settled that the Tribunal has the power to

dismiss the appeal if the assessee was not represented in its case despite

adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard granted to it. Therefore,

without delving into the merits of the case, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recalling

of this order by substantiating the reasons for non-compliance to the notice

issued to it.

4.

In the result appeal is dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 18.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 18.08.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →