GLODYNE PEOPLEPOWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4994/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from prosecuting the appeal before the CIT(A) due to an incorrect email ID. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the same order, one physically and one electronically. The assessee conceded that one appeal was duplicative. The primary appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) due to an incorrect email address on the income-tax portal, preventing the assessee from responding to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard due to technical issues with the income-tax portal. Whether the reopening of the case under Section 147 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT. DR)
Pronounced: 18/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 4963 and 4994/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited, 53/2476, Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Aayakar Vs. Radheshyam Gandhi Nagar, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, MIG Colony, Dandra (EAST), Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAACI 1231 J Appellant Respondent

: Shri Abhishek Modi (Virtually Assessee by appear) Revenue by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT. DR)

: 11/05/2026 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 18/05/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against an order dated 09.06.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’) 2013- 14.

M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited 2 ITA No. 4963 4963 and 4994/MUM/2025

2.

It is observed that one appeal had been instituted in physical hat one appeal had been instituted in physical hat one appeal had been instituted in physical form, whereas another appeal was subsequently filed electronically form, whereas another appeal was subsequently filed electronically form, whereas another appeal was subsequently filed electronically against the very same impugned order. The assessee fairly conceded against the very same impugned order. The assessee fairly conceded against the very same impugned order. The assessee fairly conceded before us that one of the appeals was merely duplicative in nature before us that one of the appeals was merely duplicative in nature before us that one of the appeals was merely duplicative in nature and, therefore, liable to be withdrawn or dismissed as infructuous. refore, liable to be withdrawn or dismissed as infructuous. refore, liable to be withdrawn or dismissed as infructuous. The learned counsel submitted that ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 may The learned counsel submitted that ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 may The learned counsel submitted that ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 may be treated as infructuous. Accepting the said submission, ITA No. be treated as infructuous. Accepting the said submission, ITA No. be treated as infructuous. Accepting the said submission, ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 is dismissed as infructuous. 4994/Mum/2025 is dismissed as infructuous.

3.

We shall now advert to We shall now advert to the surviving appeal being ITA No. the surviving appeal being ITA No. 4963/Mum/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as 4963/Mum/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as 4963/Mum/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:–

“1. The learned assessing officer has erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the 1. The learned assessing officer has erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the 1. The learned assessing officer has erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating and considering the facts and Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating and considering the facts and Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and position of law. circumstances of the case and position of law. 2. The learned assessing officer has erred in framing additions in the 2. The learned assessing officer has erred in framing additions in the 2. The learned assessing officer has erred in framing additions in the assessment order passed, without according an opportunity for cross assessment order passed, without according an opportunity for cross assessment order passed, without according an opportunity for cross examination of the concerned persons, thus not appreciating and considering the examination of the concerned persons, thus not appreciating and consid examination of the concerned persons, thus not appreciating and consid facts and circumstances of the case and position of law. facts and circumstances of the case and position of law. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.26,71,18,330/ 3. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.26,71,18,330/- as 3. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.26,71,18,330/ disallowance of other expenses by treating the purchase from M/s. Lakeview disallowance of other expenses by treating the purchase from M/s. Lakeview disallowance of other expenses by treating the purchase from M/s. Lakeview Tech Systems Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entr Tech Systems Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry without considering the facts and y without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case.” 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex parte, as the that the learned CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex parte, as the that the learned CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex parte, as the assessee could not effectively respond to the notices issued during assessee could not effectively respond to the notices issu assessee could not effectively respond to the notices issu appellate proceedings on account of an incorrect e-mail address appellate proceedings on account of an incorrect e appellate proceedings on account of an incorrect e reflected on the income reflected on the income-tax portal. In support of the said tax portal. In support of the said

M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited 3 ITA No. 4963 4963 and 4994/MUM/2025

contention, our attention was drawn to the findings recorded by the contention, our attention was drawn to the findings recorded by the contention, our attention was drawn to the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) as under: as under:

“7.1 I have carefully 7.1 I have carefully considered the material facts on record and grounds of considered the material facts on record and grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. appeal raised by the appellant. 7.2 Further, even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the 7.2 Further, even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the 7.2 Further, even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the appellant has miserably failed to rebut the findings of the AO. Also, on careful appellant has miserably failed to rebut the findings of the AO. Also, on careful appellant has miserably failed to rebut the findings of the AO. Also, on careful perusal of the ROI of the appellant for the relevant AY it is noticed that it has ROI of the appellant for the relevant AY it is noticed that it has ROI of the appellant for the relevant AY it is noticed that it has declared in its ITR for the relevant AY under consideration le AY 2013-14: declared in its ITR for the relevant AY under consideration le AY 2013 declared in its ITR for the relevant AY under consideration le AY 2013 Purchases Rs. 25,45,10,121/ Purchases Rs. 25,45,10,121/- and the sundry creditors at Rs.24,57,78,536/ and the sundry creditors at Rs.24,57,78,536/- whereas the details of unexplained pur whereas the details of unexplained purchases in the form of bogus purchases chases in the form of bogus purchases received by the department is at Rs. 26,71,18,330/ received by the department is at Rs. 26,71,18,330/-. Thus, the ROI also does not . Thus, the ROI also does not evidence any explanation for the information which has been examined by the evidence any explanation for the information which has been examined by the evidence any explanation for the information which has been examined by the AO, on which the disallowance made by the AO in the assessment order. Thus, AO, on which the disallowance made by the AO in the assessmen AO, on which the disallowance made by the AO in the assessmen the AO had the reasonable belief to reopen the case and the AO with the approval the AO had the reasonable belief to reopen the case and the AO with the approval the AO had the reasonable belief to reopen the case and the AO with the approval of the competent authority has reopened the case and followed the due procedure of the competent authority has reopened the case and followed the due procedure of the competent authority has reopened the case and followed the due procedure by way of giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant as stated in the by way of giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant as stated in the by way of giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant as stated in the assessment order, ensured natural justice and concluded the assessment based ment order, ensured natural justice and concluded the assessment based ment order, ensured natural justice and concluded the assessment based on the details available on record as the appellant did not respond to the notices on the details available on record as the appellant did not respond to the notices on the details available on record as the appellant did not respond to the notices of the AO. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 26,71,18,330/- made by the AO of the AO. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 26,71,18,330/ of the AO. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 26,71,18,330/ remained logical and reaso remained logical and reasonable even during the appellate proceedings. nable even during the appellate proceedings. 7.3 Under the circumstances, in the absence of any details or documentary 7.3 Under the circumstances, in the absence of any details or documentary 7.3 Under the circumstances, in the absence of any details or documentary evidence forthcoming from the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence forthcoming from the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence forthcoming from the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the AO rightly made the impugned disallowance of Rs. 26,71,1 AO rightly made the impugned disallowance of Rs. 26,71,18,330/ 8,330/-, and does not require any interference of the appellate authority. require any interference of the appellate authority. 7.4 From the conduct of the appellant as per the facts noted above, it is clear that 7.4 From the conduct of the appellant as per the facts noted above, it is clear that 7.4 From the conduct of the appellant as per the facts noted above, it is clear that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. Even otherwise on the merits of the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. Even otherwise on the merits of the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. Even otherwise on the merits of it also, I do not see any reason to differ with the findings of the AO since no not see any reason to differ with the findings of the AO since no not see any reason to differ with the findings of the AO since no attempt has been made by the appellant to discharge its onus of furnishing attempt has been made by the appellant to discharge its onus of furnishing attempt has been made by the appellant to discharge its onus of furnishing explanation/ documents in support of its claim made in the grounds of appeal as explanation/ documents in support of its claim made in the grounds of appeal as explanation/ documents in support of its claim made in the grounds of appeal as to why disallowance is not attracte to why disallowance is not attracted in this case. Hence, respectfully following d in this case. Hence, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements cited in the preceding paras and in view of the facts the judicial pronouncements cited in the preceding paras and in view of the facts the judicial pronouncements cited in the preceding paras and in view of the facts of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed on merits of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed on merits 8. In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts and 8. In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts a 8. In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts a circumstances on merits, the appeal filed by the appellant stands Dismissed.” circumstances on merits, the appeal filed by the appellant stands Dismissed. circumstances on merits, the appeal filed by the appellant stands Dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the We have considered the rival submissions and perused the We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the impugned appellate order, it material available on record. From the impugned appellate order, it material available on record. From the impugned appellate order, it emerges that the appeal came to be decided ex emerges that the appeal came to be decided ex parte in the absence parte in the absence

M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited 4 ITA No. 4963 4963 and 4994/MUM/2025

of effective representation on behalf of the assessee. The of effective representation on behalf of the assessee. The of effective representation on behalf of the assessee. The explanation tendered before us is that the assessee was unable to explanation tendered before us is that the assessee was unable to explanation tendered before us is that the assessee was unable to respond to the notices issued by the appellate authority owing to an respond to the notices issued by the appellate authority owing to an respond to the notices issued by the appellate authority owing to an incorrect e-mail ID reflected on the inco mail ID reflected on the income-tax portal. tax portal.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from effectively prosecuting the appeal before the learned CIT(A). It from effectively prosecuting the appeal before the learned CIT(A). It from effectively prosecuting the appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is a settled principle of law that adjudi is a settled principle of law that adjudication should ordinarily be cation should ordinarily be on merits rather than on technicalities, and a litigant ought not to on merits rather than on technicalities, and a litigant ought not to on merits rather than on technicalities, and a litigant ought not to be denied an effective opportunity of hearing where sufficient cause be denied an effective opportunity of hearing where sufficient cause be denied an effective opportunity of hearing where sufficient cause is is is demonstrated. demonstrated. demonstrated. In In In matters matters matters involving involving involving substantial substantial substantial civil civil civil consequences, the principles of na consequences, the principles of natural justice must receive full and tural justice must receive full and meaningful compliance. meaningful compliance.

7.

In the aforesaid backdrop, and in the interest of substantial In the aforesaid backdrop, and in the interest of substantial In the aforesaid backdrop, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the passed by the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the passed by the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall consider the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by consider the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by consider the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking the assessee and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking the assessee and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of order in accordance with law after affording adequate oppo order in accordance with law after affording adequate oppo hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure that hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure that hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure that its correct and active e its correct and active e-mail ID is duly updated on the income mail ID is duly updated on the income-tax portal and to remain diligent in responding to all notices issued portal and to remain diligent in responding to all notices issued portal and to remain diligent in responding to all notices issued during the appellate proceedings. The asse during the appellate proceedings. The assessee shall extend full ssee shall extend full

M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited M/s. Glodyne Peoplepower Limited 5 ITA No. 4963 4963 and 4994/MUM/2025

cooperation and shall not seek unwarranted adjournments before cooperation and shall not seek unwarranted adjournments before cooperation and shall not seek unwarranted adjournments before the learned CIT(A).

8.

In the result, ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 is dismissed as In the result, ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 is dismissed as In the result, ITA No. 4994/Mum/2025 is dismissed as infructuous, whereas ITA No. 4963/Mum/2025 is allowed for infructuous, whereas ITA No. 4963/Mum/2025 is allowed for infructuous, whereas ITA No. 4963/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18 ounced in the open Court on 18/05/2026. /05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/05/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →