A N ENTERPRISES INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

Both the appeals pertain to the same assessee and arising out from a common issue. For convenience both the appeals are taken together and heard together and disposed of by a common order. ITA 4506/Mum/2023 is taken as lead case and decision rendered therein shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the other appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny on the basis of the information available with the department that the assessee had made purchase from the suppliers who were either non-filer or had filed non-business ITRs or reflected lower turnover in ITR as compared to turnover shown in GSTR returned. The assessment was completed and the Ld. AO disallowed the purchase amounting to Rs. 38,92,96,566/- and made the addition on account of differences of receipts amount to Rs. 75,69,05,030/- which comes total amount to Rs. 1,14,62,01,596/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). But before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to comply the notices. So, the Ld.

The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising Pages 1 to 189 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that on 22.07.2025, the adjudicating authority, NCLT, Mumbai admitted the application filed by the creditor M/s. DSM Projects Pvt. Ltd. for commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the assessee as a corporate debtor. So, the assessee was unable to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) from very beginning of initiating the appeal proceeding. The Ld. AR prayed to restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo.

As the matter of the assessee was before the NCLT, the bench has directed the Ld. DR about the status report on CIRP proceedings in case of assessee. The report was duly submitted by the Ld. DR which is reproduced as below: “STATUS REPORT ON CIRE PROCEEDINGS in the case of M/s A N Enterprises Infrastructure Services Private Limited 1. Facts of the case:- Corporate insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. A N Enterprises Infrastructure Services Private Limited (PAN AAKCA633B), were initiated before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench under the main petition C.P. (IB)/221(MB)2025. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) officially mentioned on July 22, 2025, pursuant to an application filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IMC), 2016, by the Operational Creditor, DSM Projects Private Limited. The overall insolvency administration and operations of the Corporate Debtor are presently being managed by the Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty(Address: B-301, Jasmine, Agarwal & Doshi Complex, Kaul's Heritage City, Bhabola, Vasai West, Palghar MH 401202; Email: pkc195710 @gmail.com) 2. Statutory Tax Claim Submitted by the Department To protect the interest of the Revenue, the Income Tax Department through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai submitted its statutory Proof of Claim (Form B) to the Resolution Professional on 04.08.2025. The total outstanding tax demand lodged against the Corporate Debtor stands at Rs. 1,751,14,93,309/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven hundred Fifty-One Crores Fourteen Lakhs Ninety-Three Thousand Three Hundred Nine only), spanning multiple Assessment Years from AY 2017-18 through AY 2023-24. 3. NCLT Interim Application Proceedings (IA/920(MB)2026) Owing to non-cooperation by the former management, the Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 19(2) of the IBC, registered as IA(I.B.C)/920(MB)2026 in C.P. (IB)/221(MB)2025 (Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty RP vs Prakash Manohar Dhavale & Ors). During the hearing held on 02.04.2026 before the Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram: Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Technical Member &Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Judicial Member), service of notice was confirmed as successfully delivered upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the ex-directors/promoters). The Tribunal directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file their Affidavit in Reply well before the next date. Crucially, the Bench issued a mandatory direction ordering the Respondents to provide all required information and financial documents to the Resolution Professional without fail. 4. Status of Contempt Proceedings Following continued non-compliance and willful disobedience of the Tribunal's directions regarding the handover of company records and cooperation, a Contempt Petition (Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty vs. Prakash Manohar Dhavale) was formally filed by the Resolution Professional on 11.07.2026. The contempt petition remains pending before the Hon'ble NCLT for further bearing and legal enforcement against the contemnor. Regards АСIТСС)-6(4), Mumbai”

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the status report filed by the Ld. DR regarding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) pending before the Hon'ble NCLT. It is an undisputed fact that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte. The material placed before us indicates that the assessee had been admitted into CIRP by the Hon'ble NCLT and the affairs of the company were under the control of the Resolution Professional during the relevant period. The status report further reveals that the Resolution Professional has been facing difficulties in obtaining the records of the assessee due to the non- cooperation of the erstwhile management, for which proceedings under Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as well as contempt proceedings, are pending before the Hon'ble NCLT. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for its non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the appeal has been dismissed without adjudication on merits, the ends of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal de novo in accordance with law after affording the Resolution Professional/assessee an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing and after considering all documentary evidence and submissions that may be filed. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Ld. AO, and all issues are left open for fresh consideration by the Ld. CIT(A). The Resolution Professional/assessee shall extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Subject to these observations, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4506 and 4507/Mum/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31th day of July 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 31/07/2026 Soumili Das, 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