INVENIRE PETRODYNE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In this case, it is observed that this case was earlier fixed on 25.06.2026 and the Assessee has sought for adjournment and therefore, the case was adjourned to 29.06.2026, however, on 29.06.2026 none appeared on behalf the Assessee, therefore, this Court was constrained to issue notice through RPAD and e-mail and also directed the Registry to inform the Assessee telephonically. However, today also none has appeared on behalf of the Assessee.

Considering the impugned order, it appears that the ld. Commissioner afforded seven opportunities and the Assessee except seeking adjournments, made no compliance and therefore, we are inclined to affirm the order passed by the ld. Commissioner. However, it is also a fact that the ld. Commissioner has decided the appeal as ex-parte and dismissed the same in limine, without touching upon the merits of the case. Thus, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (Central) Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We further clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitle for any leniency.

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