KALYANI MUKAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2984/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 August 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a technical lapse involving an ex-employee's email. There was a significant delay in filing the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to a sufficient cause, and if the matter should be decided on merits rather than dismissed for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH; MUMBAI

Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 11.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2984/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Kalyani Mukand Limited ITO Ward 3(2)(3) Bajaj Bhavan, 3rd Floor, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226, vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra, 400020 400021.

PAN: AABCK8416G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kirit Kamdar For Revenue : Shri Venkateshwar Rao, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 30.09.2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, wherein, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 154 dated 23.03.2017 has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 472 days as pointed out by the Registry. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that since Financial Year 2015-16, the company has been commercially defunct and

ITA No. 2984/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2012-13 Kalyani Mukand Limited is active only to complete its pending litigation and has no employees on its payroll and to manage its statutory compliances, employees from its erstwhile promoter company i.e., Mukund Limited are assigned from time to time to take care of the necessary statutory activities and to respond to the notices. It was submitted that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 30.09.2024, and Mr. Sudarshan, an employee of Mukund Limited, was handling the compliance matter, who resigned on 31.03.2022, and his official e-mail ID was deactivated following standard exit procedure and, therefore, remained unattended. It was submitted that subsequently, the assessee company became aware of the order upon receipt of a recovery notice dated 24.01.2026 and thereafter, as soon as the assessee got to know about the passing of the impugned order, it took necessary steps and has filed the present appeal. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor any negligence, but arose on account of technical lapse in terms of notices sent on the e- mail ID of the ex-employee.

3.

In this regard, it was further submitted that the similar delay has happened while filing the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 5063 and 5064/Mum/2025, wherein the Coordinate Bench, vide its order dated 25.11.2025, has condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and the matter has been restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Coordinate Bench, which reads as under: “5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us to the effect that the e-mail address for service of notice was that of an employee, who had resigned on 31.03.2022 and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non- deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause"

ITA No. 2984/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2012-13 Kalyani Mukand Limited liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 6. From the records, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench, which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 7. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before I.d. CIT(A). Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/ is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh the by providing effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee 8. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 9. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. Further, it was submitted that in support of the condonation prayer, the assessee has submitted an affidavit signed by the Director of the assessee company and it was accordingly submitted that the delay be condoned, and given that the matter has not been decided on merits of the case, the matter may, therefore, be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.

5.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has relied on order passed by the lower authorities, and it was further submitted that there was substantial delay in filing the present appeal. At the same time, it was fairly submitted that the matter has not been decided on merits of the case by the ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 2984/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2012-13 Kalyani Mukand Limited

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the explanation so furnished by the assessee, duly supported by the affidavit of its Director, and the fact that on identical facts, the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case has already condoned similar delay, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the present appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

7.

Further, since the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits of the case, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 11.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 11.08.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

ITA No. 2984/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2012-13 Kalyani Mukand Limited

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, 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 →