What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and the inherent power of a tribunal to dismiss cases when a party does not pursue them. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order upon substantiating the reasons for non-compliance.

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment request was filed, and no written submissions were provided. The notice of hearing was duly served.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to prosecute the case despite adequate notice.

Tuan Gems Private Limited vs I.T.O Ward 11(3)(1) | 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.4511/MUM/2026 (AY: 2016-17) Tuan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 11(3)(1), 403 404 Shree Krishna Bhawan, PM Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve rd, Road Vile Parle East, Mumbai New Marnie lines, Churchgate 400057. 400020. PAN/GIR No: AADCT7945D (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, New Delhi, dated 06.03.2026 for the assessment year (AY) 2016-

17.

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

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the mandatory conditions prescribed under the Income-tax Act for initiating such proceedings have not been satisfied.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 73,20,200/-, being 12% of alleged transactions amounting to Rs. 6,10,02,075/-, as undisclosed business income.

ITA No.4511/MUM/2026 Tuan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete or substitute any of the above grounds of appeal and to raise such further or other grounds as may be considered necessary or expedient at or before the time of hearing.”

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

behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was filed. The notice of

hearing dated 03.07.2026 was duly served on the assessee and acknowledgment

dated 09.07.2026 is available on record. 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

ITA No.4511/MUM/2026 Tuan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. 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

TUAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD 11(3)(1), 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