CONCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, CHURCHGATE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7579/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 July 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the interest of substantial justice and the need for proper adjudication, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. This was subject to stringent conditions, including the deposit of costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to effectively prosecute its appeals before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the confirmation of additions made by the AO. The assessee admitted to the non-compliance but stated it was not deliberate.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) after failing to prosecute its appeal effectively, and under what conditions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 35(2AB),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Soneji, Ld. Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 02.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: BENCH

This batch of appeals has been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 22.09.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Ys. 2013- 14,2018-19, 2020-21 and 2023-24.

IT A 7579 to 75 82/MUM/2025 Conc ept Pharmac eut ic als L imi ted

2.

Since all the appeals involve identical facts and common issues, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we will consider the facts and issued involved in ITA No. 7579/Mum/2025 for decisions of the appeals.

3.

Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the present appeals, are that in ITA No. 7579/Mum/2025 the AO, vide assessment order dated 11.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), made the following additions/disallowances:

(i) Disallowance under section 14A – ₹3,02,673/-;

(ii) Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) – ₹2,84,23,776/-.

4.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. It is observed from the impugned order that despite affording several opportunities, the Assessee neither effectively prosecuted the appeal nor filed any submissions, except seeking adjournments on certain occasions. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner proceeded to adjudicate the issues on merits by passing a speaking order and confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the AO.

5.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee fairly admitted the non-compliance and default by the

IT A 7579 to 75 82/MUM/2025 Conc ept Pharmac eut ic als L imi ted

Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that the default or lapse was neither deliberate nor intentional. He, therefore, prayed for one last and final opportunity to substantiate the Assessee's case and voluntarily offered to deposit costs of ₹55,000/- in the Revenue Department under the "Other Heads".

7.

The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he has no serious objection, if one final opportunity is granted to the Assessee, subject to appropriate conditions.

We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and 8.

carefully perused the material available on record. It is an admitted

position that despite repeated opportunities afforded by the Ld.

Commissioner, the Assessee failed to effectively prosecute the

respective 1st appeal. Such conduct cannot be appreciated and

deserves to be deprecated. At the same time, it is equally evident

that the issues involved in the present appeal require proper

adjudication after considering the relevant material and submissions,

which admittedly could not be placed before the Ld. Commissioner

owing to the Assessee's default. It is also pertinent to note that

despite the Assessee's non-compliance, the Ld. Commissioner has

decided the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order. However,

having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the considered view that one final opportunity deserves to be

granted so that the controversy may attain finality on the basis of

complete facts and material.

IT A 7579 to 75 82/MUM/2025 Conc ept Pharmac eut ic als L imi ted

9.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in

totality, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to

afford one last and final opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate

its case before the Ld. Commissioner. However, such indulgence must

necessarily be coupled with stringent conditions, so that the process

of law is not abused and no further unnecessary delay is caused in

the adjudication of the appeals.

10.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is

restored to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh in

accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing

to the Assessee, subject to the condition that the Assessee shall

deposit costs of ₹55,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand only) in

each appeal under the "Other Heads" of the Revenue Department

within 15 days from the date of this order and shall place the proof of

such deposit before the Ld. Commissioner.

11.

The Assessee is further directed to extend full cooperation in

the remand proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary

adjournments. In the event of failure to comply with the aforesaid

conditions, the Ld. Commissioner shall be at liberty to proceed in

accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record.

IT A 7579 to 75 82/MUM/2025 Conc ept Pharmac eut ic als L imi ted

12.

Resultantly, the Assessee's appeal i.e. ITA No. 7579/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.

13.

In the result, in view of our above judgment in ITA No. 7579/Mum/2025, all appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

(Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary 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 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →