DELUXE JEWELS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 828/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2020-213 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and present their case. The dismissal was based on the principle that a tribunal cannot prolong proceedings when the moving party is absent.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2020-21. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing on multiple occasions and did not file any written submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings. The validity of assessment proceedings under Section 153C and related additions were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 153C,Section 153B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Biyayananda Pruseth (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Viraj Mehta
Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Biyayananda Pruseth (AM)

ITA No. 828/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21)

Deluxe Jewels Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2) 39/41, Hem Bhavan Aayakara Bhavan, M.K. Dhanji Street, Zaveri Road, Mumbai-400 020. Bazar, Mumbai-400 003. PAN : AACFD9470F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Respondent by Shri Viraj Mehta Date of Hearing 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026

ORDER Per Bijayananda Pruseth (AM) :

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [in short, ‘CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) dated 01.12.2025 for assessment year (in short, ‘AY’) 2020-21.

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :-

Ground No. 1: The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment of total income at Rs. 11000000 as against the returned income of

Ground No. 2: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment framed u s 153C despite the assessment year not being the relevant assessment year as prescribed under the Act rendering the assessment bad in law.

Ground No. 3: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment despite the failure to provide the copy of reasons for reopening of proceedings u s 153C as demanded by the appellant.

2 ITA No. 828/Mum/2026 Deluxe Jewels

Ground No. 4: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment framed us 153C rws 143 3 beyond the time limit prescribed u s 153B.

Ground No. 5: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 11000000 u s 69A and the levy of tax u s 115BBE despite section 69A being inapplicable in the instant case.

Ground No. 6: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u s 271AAC of the Act.

Ground No. 7: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of interest u s 234B of the Act.

Ground No. 8: The Learned CIT A erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of interest u s 234C of the Act.

Ground No. 9: Right to amend grounds of appeal.

3.

The case was fixed for hearing on 27.04.2026, but, on the request of assessee, the case was adjourned to 18.5.2026. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.05.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment filed. It has also not filed any written submission and corroborative details in support of the grounds of appeal. 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 matter. It is now well settled that the Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal if the assessee was not represented in its case despite adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard granted to it. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the

3 ITA No. 828/Mum/2026 Deluxe Jewels

assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reasons for non- compliance to the notices issued to it.

4.

In the result appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai : Dated: 26.05.2026

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT-concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file By order

(Dy/Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →