NITIN RAMESH KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7906/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2017-283 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The primary reason for dismissal was the non-appearance of the assessee on the date of hearing, despite adequate opportunity. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chemipol Vs. Union of India and the Hon'ble SC in Nandramdas Dwarkadas to support its inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to appear. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not delve into the merits of the case. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recalling of the order by substantiating the reasons for non-compliance with the notice. No finding was given on the substantive grounds of appeal related to section 69A or the admission of additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Ramesh Kadam, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 12.05.2026. This order pertained to the assessment year (AY) 2017-18 and upheld an addition made to the assessee's total income under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the addition and also raised concerns about the rejection of additional evidence furnished during the appellate proceedings. The case was listed for hearing on 29.09.2026, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any request for adjournment filed. The assessee also did not submit any written submissions or corroborative details.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made to the assessee's total income under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the facts of the case ought to have been considered on merits? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) ought to have issued a show cause notice before rejecting the details furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, and whether these details must be considered for deciding the applicability of section 69A? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition under section 69A and should have decided the issue on merits. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) should have considered the facts and issued a show cause notice before rejecting the details provided during the appellate proceedings. The assessee prayed that the details furnished should be considered and the issue remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee also sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7906/MUM/2026 (AY: 2017-18) Nitin Ramesh Kadam vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), 327 B, Jijamata Nagar, G D Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai – Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai-400033. 400051. PAN/GIR No: BLKPK6860L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shree Kumar C. (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 29.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

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

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

Income Tax (Appeals), dated 12.05.2026 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

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

“Ground No. 1: Addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)" for sake of brevity] has erred in upholding the addition made to total income of the Appellant under section 69A of the Act.

1.2 The Appellant submits that Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice ought to have considered the facts of the case and decided the issue on the merits.

1.3 The Appellant prays that under the circumstances, the delay in filing of appeal be condoned.

ITA No.7906/MUM/2026 Nitin Ramesh Kadam Ground No. 2: Admission of additional evidence

2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts of the case and at least issue a show cause before rejecting the details furnished by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings

2.2 The Appellant prays before the Tribunal that in the interest of justice, the details furnished by the Appellant must be considered to decide the applicability of provisions of section 69A of the Act.

2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the details furnished before the CIT(A) must be considered and the issue may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer in the peculiar circumstances of the case.”

3.

The case was fixed for hearing on 29.09.2026; but, none appeared on

behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was filed. The appellant

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 case. 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

ITA No.7906/MUM/2026 Nitin Ramesh Kadam 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 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 is dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 29.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 29.09.2026 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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →