MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY,DAMAN AND DIU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: D BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 4850/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2018-19) ITA 4851/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA 4852/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21) MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD MUMBAI VADHAIYA BEING EX-DIRECTOR 420,4th Floor, Kautilya OF THE COMPANY Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Vs. 255/A, Shop. No 1, 1st Floor, Sai Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Somnath Complex, Daman And Bandra (East), Mumbai Diu, Daman-396210, Daman And Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra Diu अपीलाथ�Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAGCM6615G

अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: None Shri Mahesh Londhe SR. DR. ��थ��ारा/Respondent represented by: a/w Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07-Aug-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 12-Aug-2026 आदेश / ORDER

ITA 4850 to 4852/MUM/2026 MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY PER SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: A bunch of appeal pertains to the same assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21, date of orders 16.02.2026. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-C.C. 4(3), Mumbai (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under Section 147, date of order 10.02.2023 and 31.03.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 and A.Y. 2019-20 and for A.Y. 2020-21 order passed by DCIT-C.C. 4(3), Mumbai, order passed under Section 143(3) date of order 17.03.2022. 2. When the appeals were called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the cases. There are no applications for seeking adjournment either. On perusal of record, we find that the hearing is scheduled today but no response was received from the end of the assessee. In view of the above, and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte qua for assessee after hearing the Ld. DR and on basis of material available on record. 3. All the appeals are pertaining to the same assessee and arising out from a common issue. For convenience, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of by a common order. ITA No.4850/Mum/2026 for A.Y. 2018-19 is taken as lead case and decision rendered there in shall be applied mutatis mutandis to other appeals. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the revenue authorities. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee is a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 (now Companies Act, 2013). The assessee is engaged in the business of agri 2

ITA 4850 to 4852/MUM/2026 MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY commodities, precious metals and trading in Derivative and shares on recognized exchange. The assessee filed its return of income on 16/10/2018 declaring total income at Rs. 11,14,850/- under head Profits and gains from business or profession. The scrutiny assessment was completed on 15/09/2021 u/s 143(3) accepting the declared income, after multiple hearings. Show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 16/10/2022 was issued asking to show cause as to why notice under section 148 should not be issued. The appellant replied vide letter dated 23 March 2022. Finally the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act proposing to initiate reassessment proceedings. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 11,14,850/- on 27/04/2022 which was same as the original return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act. During assessment proceedings it has also been alleged that the assessee is carrying on non- genuine business activities and therefore, purchase and sale of goods during the FY 2017-18 are held to be non-genuine and a deemed profit at 0.25 percentage on the purchase and sales has been earned by the assessee. A Notice of striking off and dissolution from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs was issued on 02/01/2023 stating that "M/s Mavaiya Enterprises Private Limited has this day of January been struck off the register of companies and the said Company is dissolved." The reassessment was completed wherein purchase and sales carried on in alleged financial year is treated as non-genuine and an addition of Rs. 6,67,11,235/- on account of deemed profit at 0.25 percentage on the purchase and sales was made. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal for non- prosecution. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before ITAT. 5. The Ld. DR further contended that on verification from DDIT the Ld. AO had found that the assessee is a bogus entity and was providing the fictitious 3

ITA 4850 to 4852/MUM/2026 MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY purchase and sale to the parties. The reassessment order was duly framed exparte and as well as the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed ample opportunity but the assessee had failed to response the notices. So, the appellate order was passed exparte. The observations of the Ld. CIT(A) in para no.6.1 is reproduced as below:

“6.1. On the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit 6(3), Mumbai the case of the assessee was reopened. As per the inquiry report of DDIT, it is noticed that i. The company premises was closed and unused for long time. ii. Despite having huge turnover, the company does not have any employees or negligible number of employees. iii. Further, the statement of the Directors u/s.131 of the Act were taken wherein it is observed that the director does not know about the transport of the goods. He is not aware of the sale and purchase parties despite the large amount of trading turnover. iv. The company does not have sufficient source of fund to support such huge turnover with very low percentage of profit. v. The Shareholders and the Directors of these entities are not men of means. vi. The premises from where they have stated to function are unused and dilapidated for a long time. There is no business activity happening from these places. Since the issue in appeal is purely based on facts, the undersigned called for details specific to the transaction. Sec.250(4) of I-T Act empowers CIT(A) to make further inquiries. For the sake of convenience Sec.250(4) is reproduced below: 250(4) The [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the [Assessing] Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals)].” 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has concluded the appeal by following observations which are reproduced as below:-

“7. Decision:

ITA 4850 to 4852/MUM/2026 MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY 7.1 Despite clearly asking the appellant to submit the details and facts relevant to the assessee’s appeal, the appellant chose not to respond and not to furnish the requisite facts and details necessary for adjudication of the appeal. In the absence of the requisite facts, it is difficult to adjudicate the grounds of appeal. The appellant relied on certain case laws seeking relief. However, in the instant case as a FAA, I desired to give fullest opportunity to the appellant but the appellant did not produce the details/facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal. Merely quoting case laws is not enough, but the appellant has to discharge its duty of providing the facts so necessary for adjudication.

7.2. Facts are integral to assessment and appeal processes especially before fact finding authorities. First Appellate Authority, indeed being a fact-finding authority, cannot adjudicate the appeal only on legal grounds while it being bereft of facts and merits, especially when the assessee exercises a conscious choice of non-compliance during appeal proceedings. Without producing the necessary facts, it cannot be expected that the assessee would be entitled to immunity or relief from assessment order only through legal/technical claims. It sends a wrong message to the entire taxpaying community if assessment order is adjudicated in favour of the appellant only on legal/procedural/technical aspects while the assessee restrains itself from divulging the facts.

7.3. The assessee has duty of candour and good faith. He has to furnish the facts and materials necessary for adjudication of appeal especially when specific particulars were called for. He has to furnish the details called for. Justice is not about getting a favourable decision but about getting a right decision. For rendering right decision, the facts which could not be brought on record by the AO are required to be brought on record. By not furnishing the details, the assessee attempts to make the first appellate authority as redundant. The first appellate stage is the crucial stage in appellate system to gather and stabilise the facts and thereupon the law can be applied. The facts gathered by the Investigation/Assessing authority may not be sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion in all the cases and that was the reason why additional details were called for. The assessee seems to be adamant and does not seem to face any extra facts apparently for the fear of truth coming out. The facts are the foundation for decision making especially at the first appellate authority. The deliberate act of not furnishing the facts should be viewed with suspicion. It should be concluded that the appellant is seemingly not furnishing the facts for the fear that the 5

ITA 4850 to 4852/MUM/2026 MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY colourable devices adopted by him might come to the fore. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd, 154 ITR 148 held that tax planning is legitimate but colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning. In the absence of the relevant facts, I am constrained to confirm the additions made by the AO and accordingly dismiss the appeal. 8. As a result, appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed u/s.147 of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2018-19 is treated as dismissed.” 7. It is evident from the record that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing. During the course of enquiry, various adverse circumstances were noticed, inter alia, that the business premises of the assessee were found closed and unused; there were no or negligible employees despite substantial turnover; the Director was unable to explain the transportation of goods or identify the parties involved in substantial purchases and sales; and the financial capacity of the assessee was not commensurate with the magnitude of the transactions undertaken. We further observe that the assessee failed to effectively participate in the reassessment proceedings and the assessment was consequently completed ex-parte. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), despite sufficient opportunities and specific requisitions for furnishing the relevant details and supporting evidence, the assessee failed to produce the material necessary for examination of the genuineness of the impugned transactions. The Ld. CIT(A), being the first appellate and fact-finding authority, had specifically invoked the powers under section 250(4) of the Act to ascertain the relevant facts; however, the assessee did not avail itself of the opportunities so provided. 8. Before us also, the assessee has neither appeared nor placed any material on record to controvert the factual findings recorded by the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the adverse factual findings regarding the genuineness of the purchase and sale transactions remain unrebutted. In the absence of any 6

ITA 4850 to 4852/MUM/2026 MAVAIYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (THROUGH VINOD VADHAIYA BEING EX DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY contrary material or explanation from the assessee, we find no basis on the material before us to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) warranting our interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed and the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos.4850, 4851 & 4852/Mum/2026 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of August 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 12/08/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI