STATURE LIFESTYLE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5005/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 August 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's repeated defaults but, in the interest of substantial justice, decided to grant one final opportunity. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 11,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the NFAC due to non-compliance and failure to attend virtual hearings, despite multiple opportunities. The assessee claimed technical glitches caused the non-attendance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's repeated non-compliance and failure to attend hearings warrant a dismissal, or if a final opportunity should be granted on payment of costs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Ld.AR

PER SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, [in short “Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the A.Y 2018-19.

2 ITA No.5005/Mum/2026 Stature Lifestyle Homes Pvt Ltd 2. From the record, it appears that the AO, vide penalty order dated 19.09.2023 passed u/s 271AAC of the Act, levied penalty to the tune of Rs. 27,03,750/-, which was challenged by the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner afforded three opportunities to the Assessee and also referred the case to the Verification Unit for verification. However, despite the aforesaid opportunities, the Assessee neither made compliance nor filed any substantive submissions or supporting documents. It further appears from the record that the Assessee had also requested for hearing through Video Conferencing (VC). Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner afforded an opportunity by issuing notice dated 05.12.2025, fixing the case for hearing on 08.12.2025. However, as recorded in the impugned order, the Assessee did not click on the tab appearing alongside the VC notice and, consequently, did not attend the hearing.

3.

The Ld. Commissioner, in order to afford another opportunity, issued a further notice dated 04.02.2026, fixing the case for VC hearing on 05.02.2026. However, on the said date as well, the Assessee failed to avail the opportunity. Thus, on account of the aforesaid defaults, the Ld. Commissioner declined to entertain the grounds raised by the Assessee.

4.

At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the non-compliance and non-attendance through VC occurred due to a technical glitch and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken and one more opportunity may be granted to the Assessee, either by restoring the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner or by remanding the matter to the file of the AO, particularly, as the penalty order itself had been passed ex parte.

3 ITA No.5005/Mum/2026 Stature Lifestyle Homes Pvt Ltd 5. We observe from the penalty order that the AO had also issued 04 notices to the Assessee, however, the Assessee failed to make compliance, even before the AO.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the conduct of the Assessee and the repeated defaults both before the AO as well as the Ld. Commissioner, we are inclined not to accept the Assessee’s plea for unconditional leniency. However, in the interest of advancing substantial justice, we also observe that the penalty proceedings have not been adjudicated on merits in their right perspective, essentially on account of the absence of the relevant submissions and documents, which the Assessee admittedly failed to file before the authorities below.

7.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and treating the same as an exceptional case, we deem it appropriate to afford one final opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim, however, having regard to the repeated defaults on the part of the Assessee, the aforesaid opportunity would be subjected to payment of cost of Rs. 11,000/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ within 15 days of this order, so that the Assessee will become more active and vigilant in perusing its legal proceedings.

8.

Accordingly, the impugned penalty proceedings are restored to the file of the Ld. JAO for adjudication afresh, subject to payment of cost as directed above and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

4 ITA No.5005/Mum/2026 Stature Lifestyle Homes Pvt Ltd 9. We clarify, that in case of any further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- RAKESH KUMAR LODHA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KRK, Sr. PS

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 271AAC

All 982 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →