What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the delay, lack of condonation petition, and absence of the assessee at the hearing. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 138 days and did not file a petition for condonation of delay. The assessee also failed to appear for the hearing and did not file any written submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for delay and non-prosecution. Whether the Tribunal has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance of the assessee.

Hexagon Vyapaar Private Limited vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4433/MUM/2026 (AY: 2007-08) Hexagon Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 115/117 Atmrama Merchan Road, Faceless Assessment Unit, Income Tax 3rd Floor R No 29 Bhuleshwar India, Mumbai. Mumbai 400002. PAN/GIR No: AABCH6481L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Smt. 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 National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 16.09.2025 for the assessment year (AY)

2007-08.

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

“1. General Ground The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order which is bad in law, contrary to facts and liable to be quashed. 2. Invalid Reopening (Jurisdictional Ground) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding reopening u/s 147 without appreciating that: • Reasons recorded were not provided to assessee • Reassessment is therefore void ab initio 3. Addition u/s 68-Rs. 65,00,000 (Sustained)

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of 65,00,000 u/s 68 ignoring that: • Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness fully proved • Share application forms, PAN, bank statements submitted • No adverse inquiry conducted by AO • Addition based merely on suspicion 4. Rejection of Additional Evidence (Rule 46A) The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence without: • Recording proper reasons • Providing opportunity under Rule 46A • Violating principles of natural justice 5. Share Capital / Premium Issue • The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate: • Share premium is capital receipt (Vodafone HC) • Section 56(2)(viib) not applicable to AY 2007-08 • Valuation cannot be questioned u/s 68

Failure to Consider Judicial Precedents CIT(A) ignored binding decisions including: • CIT vs Lovely Exports (SC) • PCIT vs Adamine Construction • Orchid Industries (Bom HC) 7. Violation of Natural Justice Order passed without proper opportunity and without considering submissions fully. 8. Leave to Add Grounds Appellant craves leave to add/modify grounds.”

There is delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The

appellant has not filed any petition for condonation of delay in terms of sub-

section (5) of section 253 of the Act. In absence of any petition or supporting

details including affidavit, there is no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed under sub-section (3) of section 253 of the Act.

Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

The case was fixed for hearing on 18.08.2026, but none appeared on

behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment 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 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.

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

HEXAGON VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments