MUKAND SUMI SPECIAL STEEL LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 4876/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 August 2026AY 2022-237 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid as it failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing and did not independently adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee. The order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 58 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to bona fide circumstances. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity for hearing and by reproducing a previous year's order verbatim.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity for hearing and by reproducing a previous year's order. Whether the CIT(A)'s order complied with the procedural requirements of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Alpesha Dharod

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra – CIT DR

Hearing: 06/08/2026Pronounced: 10/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Assistant Commissioner of Limited, Tahne Belapur Road, Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Kalwa Thane, Kalwa S.O, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Thane – 400605, Mumbai. Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020.

PAN NO. AAJCM 5569 J Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Alpesha Dharod Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Lakra – CIT DR.

Date of Hearing : 06/08/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Delhi) [in short, the learned CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2022-23, raising following grounds.

A) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (here-in-after referred to as 'Ld. CIT(A)'), eared in passing an ex-parte order in great haste without providing opportunity of filing submission and personal hearing though video conferencing

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited 2 ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026

1.b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in passing the order without dealing with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant for the assessment year under consideration and verbatim reproducing the order for AY 2018-19. 2.a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in passing the order in great haste denying the appellant an opportunity to raise additional grounds of appeal as per Para 5(v) of Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. 2b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, arm's length price of the international transactions ie technical services and commission paid aggregating to Rs. 20,59,271/ should not be determined as NIL based on the Need-Evidence-Benefit Test. 3a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground no. 1(a) & 1(b) taken here-in-above, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified rather grossly erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to claim of depreciation on intangible assets for the AY under consideration amounting to Rs. 1,29,42,21,492/-on merits and instead verbatim reproducing the order for AY 2018-19. 3b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,42,21,492/- ought to have been made in the order u/s 143(3). 4a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified rather grossly erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to addition of Rs. 2,70,77,388/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on merits. 4(b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no addition of Rs. 2,70,77,388/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C ought to have been made in the order u/s 143(3). 5a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified rather grossly erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against income assessed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' on merits. 5(b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against income assessed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' ought to have been granted in the order u/s 143(3). 6(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified rather grossly erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to levy of interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 2,88,36,148/-on merits.

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited 3 ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026

6(b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 2,88,36,148/- ought to have been levied in the order u/s 143(3). 7(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified rather grossly erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to levy of interest amounting to Rs. 1,61,72,909/-on merits. 7(b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no interest amounting to Rs. 1,61,72,909/- ought to have been levied in the order u/s 143(3).” 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee sought condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the present appeal. It was submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the learned CIT(A) without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing, as contemplated under paragraph 12(3) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021, thereby offending the principles of natural justice. In view thereof, the assessee was advised to challenge the impugned order before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition seeking its quashing and setting aside. Acting upon such advice and under a bona fide belief that parallel proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunal ought not to be pursued simultaneously, the assessee instituted the writ proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court.

The writ petition was listed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 16.03.2026 and was thereafter adjourned to 01.04.2026. However, the matter could not be taken up for hearing for want of sufficient time. Thereafter, when the assessee sought information regarding the next date of hearing from the learned counsel, he was

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited 4 ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026

asked about the date of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It was at this stage that the assessee realised that an appeal before the Tribunal could also have been instituted notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition. The present appeal was accordingly filed. It was further submitted that, in the event the writ petition is ultimately decided in favour of the assessee, the assessee would seek appropriate permission to withdraw the present appeal.

The learned counsel submitted that the delay was occasioned on account of the aforesaid bona fide circumstances and was neither deliberate nor motivated by any advantage sought to be gained by the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

We have considered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. The explanation furnished by the assessee, viewed in the entirety of the circumstances, constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of the law governing condonation of delay. The delay is neither shown to be deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide conduct. Keeping in view the settled principle that substantial justice should ordinarily prevail over technical considerations, particularly where the litigant has demonstrated bona fide circumstances explaining the delay, we condone the delay of 58 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited 5 ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026

Coming to the merits, the learned counsel submitted that the assessee was not afforded any notice or effective opportunity of hearing before the learned CIT(A). It was further submitted that, instead of examining the grounds raised in the assessee’s appeal and the facts peculiar to the year under consideration, the learned CIT(A) had reproduced, virtually verbatim, the order passed by the first appellate authority in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2018-19, without even substituting the quantum of the additions involved in the year under appeal. A copy of the writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court challenging the impugned order was also placed on record.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 250 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed in an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof contemplate an effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant, while sub-section (6) mandates that the appellate order shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. These statutory requirements are not matters of form; they constitute the essential attributes of a valid appellate adjudication.

In the present case, the impugned order does not satisfy these requirements. The assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing and, further, the learned CIT(A) has

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited 6 ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026

substantially reproduced the order passed in the assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2018-19 without independently examining the grounds, facts and issues arising in the year under consideration. Such an order cannot be regarded as an adjudication of the appeal within the contemplation of section 250(6) of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid fundamental infirmities, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions in dispute, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the appeal to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with section 250 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) shall consider the grounds raised by the assessee, the material available on record and the submissions advanced, record his findings on each point requiring determination, and pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 10/08/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited 7 ITA No. 4876/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →