DCIT CIRCLE 19(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HINDVA IMPEX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3419/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 August 2026AY 2007-084 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing the assessee's non-appearance and lack of submissions, decided not to delve into the merits of the case. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed based on the principle that proceedings cannot continue when a party fails to appear.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order restricting an addition made for bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT despite multiple opportunities and did not file any submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for bogus purchases instead of upholding the Assessing Officer's addition, and whether the assessee's non-appearance warrants dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3419/MUM/2026 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT CIRCLE 19(1) vs. HINDVA IMPEX Piramal Chambers Lal Baug, 1407/B, Panchratna, M P Road, Opera Mumbai-400012. House, Mumbai-400004. PAN/GIR No: AADFH5828C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Sujatha Iyyanger (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 20.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.08.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the NFAC, Delhi dated

25.03.2026 for the assessment year (AY) 2007-08.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CITIA) erred in directing to restrict the addition made of Rs. 1787,905/ by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases instead of upholding the addition made based on investigation findings, and the suppliers from whom purchases were claimed were identified as accommodation entry providers belonging to the Bhanwarlal Jain group, engaged in issuing bogus bills without actual supply of goods.

2 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in holding that the purchases could not be treated as bogus merely because the corresponding sales were recorded, without appreciating that accommodation bills are often used to regularize unaccounted purchases and suppress true profits."

ITA No.3419/MUM/2026 Hindva Impex 3 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the assessee could not produce the suppliers for verification, nor establish transportation, delivery, and genuineness of purchases through independent evidence.

4.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CITIA) erred in directing to restrict the addition to the profit element without appreciating that the entire purchases represented non-genuine transactions routed through hawala dealers and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the findings of the Investigation Wing and statements recorded during search/survey proceedings clearly established the bogus nature of the purchase transactions.

5.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR (Gul) 354, Dated. 16.01.2017, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, once a findings of act. has been given that entire purchases shown based on fictitious invoices and debited in the P & L account are established as bogus, then restricting the addition to a curtained percentage goes against the principles of section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and when the purchases mode are from bogus suppliers or concerns, the entire purchases are liable to disallowed."

6.

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) dated. 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s 69C of the Act, even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of alleged purchases and has offered no explanation of the sources of expenditure incurred on account of such purchases?"

7.

"The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another.”

ITA No.3419/MUM/2026 Hindva Impex 3. The case was fixed for hearing on 25.06.2026; but, none appeared on

behalf of the assessee. The case was thereafter adjourned to 20.08.2026 for

hearing. However, none appeared before the Tribunal nor any request for

adjournment was filed. The appellant has also not filed any written submission

and corroborative details against the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue.

Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in prolonging the litigation. The

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of India (Central

Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009) has held that it is axiomatic that no Court or Tribunal

is supposed to continue proceedings before it when the party who has moved it

has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an

inherent power which every Tribunal possess. The Hon’ble High Court referred to

the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP

206 while deciding the case. It is now well settled that the Tribunal has the power

to decide the appeal if the assessee was not represented despite adequate and

reasonable opportunity of being heard granted to it. The assessee has not

controverted the grounds raised by the revenue by filing submission and

necessary details. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the

appeal of the revenue is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to

seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reasons for non-compliance to

the notice issued to it.

4.

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed. 3

ITA No.3419/MUM/2026 Hindva Impex Order is pronounced on 27.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Soumili; PS MUMBAI Date: 27.08.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →