BHAGYALAXMI KITCHENWARE LLP,VASAI ROAD EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1593/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2026AY 2022-234 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 held that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by limitation, with a delay of 11 days. It noted that no application for condonation of the delay had been filed along with the appeal. Citing Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Tribunal stated that any proceeding instituted after the prescribed period of limitation is liable to be dismissed, unless delay is condoned. As no application for condonation was made, the delay could not be considered or condoned. Therefore, the appeal was rejected at the threshold and dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhagyalaxmi Kitchenware LLP, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The appeal was filed with a delay of 11 days. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, despite repeated calls and prior notice. The registry had sent summons via speed post and email to the address provided by the assessee. The Revenue's representative was present and ready to argue the case. Consequently, the ITAT decided to proceed ex parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether it can be admitted in the absence of a condonation of delay application? Assessee's contentions: The judgment records no contentions from the assessee as none appeared for the hearing. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's representative was present and ready to argue. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments but implies they would have opposed the admission of the appeal due to the delay. The Revenue would likely rely on the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the ITAT Rules regarding the filing of appeals within the prescribed period and the necessity of a condonation application for delays.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

Pronounced: 16.10.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2023-24/1062849136(1) dated 27-Nov-2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. Even on the last date of hearing, nobody appeared. From the case records, we note that the summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post as well as by email. Considerable time has elapsed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36. Therefore, drawing an inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that the service of summons/notice has been duly effected.

3.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the Court is ready with the arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

4.

At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before us.

5.

The solitary ground raised by the assessee pertains to the challenge against the order of the CIT(A). However, it is observed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and no application seeking condonation of the delay has been filed along with the appeal. In the absence of any such application, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be considered or condoned.

6.

As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, every proceeding instituted after the prescribed period of limitation is liable to be dismissed, subject to the provisions relating to condonation of delay. In the present case, since the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of the delay, the appeal is liable to be rejected at the threshold.

7.

Accordingly, in the absence of any application for condonation of delay, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 16.10.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: BHAGYALAXMI KITCHENWARE LLP, GALA NO.11 KUMAVAT ESTATE 1 GORAIPADA VASAI ROAD EAST, VASAI-VIRAR-401208, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), 6TH FLOOR ASHAR IT PARK WAGLE 2 ESTATE, THANE-400601, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 3

All 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →