JAYAKAR SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 41(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE () Assessment Year: 2017-18
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against order dated
19.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following ground:
The Hon’ CIT (A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Learned AO in his assessment Order u/s 143 (3) of the Act of Rs. 75,55,552/- u/s 68 of the Act.
At the very thre by the Learned Com suffers from a fund dispute has not been section 250 of the In ‘the Act’) that the L statutorily enjoined dealing with the meri the assessee chooses submissions. Non-ap in itself, to dismiss a appellate authority dispute on merits. 2.1 From the record, the non-compliance o has mainly referred precedents relating to dismissed the appeal is reproduced as und “8: NON-COM It is seen t opportunities was institute furnish any hearing in s substantiate h ITA eshold, we find that the impugn missioner of Income-tax (Appea damental infirmity inasmuch a n adjudicated on merits. It is we ncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi-judici to dispose of an appeal by a its of the controversy, even in a s to remain absent or fails to f ppearance of the assessee cann an appeal in limine, nor can it a of his statutory obligation to , it emerges that the Ld. CIT(A), on the part of the assessee to re to section 68 of the Act and o dismissal for non-prosecution l. The relevant extract of the Ld der: MPLIANCE TO THE APPEAL NOTICES that the appellant has been offered before disposal of the appeal since th ed as on 24.01.2020, but the appellan documentary evidences on the dates p support of his claim the appellant his grounds of appeal with evidences. Jaykar Shetty 2 A No. 3528/MUM/2025 ed order passed als) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] as the issue in ell settled under er referred to as ial authority, is reasoned order situation where file the requisite not be a ground, absolve the first adjudicate the , after recording epeated notices, certain judicial n, and thereafter d. CIT(A)’s order sufficient he appeal nt did not posted for failed to There are no under; 1. Hearin 2. Hearin 3. Hearin 4. Hearin 5. Hearin Since the app issue of non covered vide f As there is no be . dismisse and the var the case of C 354) held tha “Expression prosecuting a Purposefully i formally filing before the con fray. The Hon'bl TukojiRaoHo party, at who at the hearing books so as t bound to answ Similar view h (India) Pvt. L Multiplan (Ind dismissed app and Matheso 134/Mds/20 to add here th those who sle the wel dormientibusj of the vigilant other proceed plaintiff is fav ITA o responses to the following notices/ ng notice u/s 250 dated; 08.01.2021. ng notice u/s 250 dated; 21.01.2021 ng notice u/s 250 dated; 27.09.2023 ng letter dated; 26.09.2024 ng letter dated; 07.03.2025 peal filed, the assessee remains unrespon ncompliance of appeal proceedings are following decisions as under; o response to appeal notices, the appeal i d in terms of verdicts of the Hon'ble Ap rious High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex CIT v. B.N.Bhattacharjee and another at an appeal means an effective appeal; "prefers an appeal" would mean an Appeal” interpreted, preferring an appeal means g it but effectively pursuing it. If a part ntest begins, it is as good as not having e le MP High Court in Estate olkar v. CIT, 223 ITR 48(MP) has held ose instance the reference is made, fails g, or fails in taking steps for preparation to enable hearing of the reference, the co wer the has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Ltd., 38 1TD 320 (Del).Following the dia) Ltd (supra), the Chennai Tribunal peal for non- prosecution in the case of M on Information Technology Ltd v ITO in 11 dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006-07. It is hat the laws assist those who are vigilan eep over their rights. This principle is em l-known maxim "Vigilantibus jurasubveniunt". It means equity comes t and not the slumbering. In all actions, dings at law and in equity, the diligence a voured to the prejudicial of him who is car Jaykar Shetty 3 A No. 3528/MUM/2025 letters as nsive. The squarely is liable to pex Court Court, in r (10 CTR effectively more than ty retreats ntered the of Late d that if a to appear n of paper ourt is not Multiplan e ratio of has also M/S Helios n ITA No. s pertinent nt and not mbodied in non to the aid suits and and careful reless.
In case of:
Mumbai) App
Judgement/O under;
“5. We find t notices and t compliance w
28.02.2017 th filed reply, w
Assessing Off
Assessing Off documents, b the assessee
Officer to the detail on 10. Officer for ve the assessee facts and cir cooperated be own documen assesses requ the Ld. CIT(A) appropriate to looking to the disregard of t of Rs. 20,000
into Prime Mi this order.
Further, ITA
ITA No/1197
“Jerry John M
Income Tax A appeal filed b
Ld. Commiss year 2011-12
compliance authorities. A the assessee f delay of 208
assessee had before the As various notice or participate had been di
ITA
Sanjay ChandrakantGaonkarVs IT peal Number: ITA No. 364/MUM/2022
Order: 17/07/2023 (ITAT Mumbai) that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued as muc thereafter issues final opportunity but no was made on the part of the assessee. F he Ld. Authorised Representative of the which was forwarded by the Ld. CIT( fficer calling for remand report. Consequ fficer called for the assessee for verificat but again no compliance was made on t e and this fact was reported by the A e Ld. CIT(A). Once again, the assessee
03.2017, which was forwarded to the A erification but again no compliance was before the Assessing Officer. In view of rcumstance, it is evident the assessee efore the lower authorities for verification nts and claims. Before us the Ld. Coun uested for restoring the matter back to ). In the interest of the substantial justice, o restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) e non-compliant conduct of the assessee the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), im
0/-. The assessee is directed to deposit inister Relief Fund within seven days of AT Mumbai in case of Jerry John Men
7/Mum/2023 order held under;
MendoncaVs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Introdu
Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently by Jerry John Mendonca against the or ioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the as 2. The appeal raised grounds regard with income tax proceedings befo
Analysis: The ITAT considered the reason for the delay in filing the appeal and con
8 days. However, the ITAT observed d failed to comply with income tax pr ssessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A es and opportunities, the assessee did no in the proceedings. The ITAT noted that t ismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to th
Jaykar Shetty
4
A No. 3528/MUM/2025
TO (ITAT
2 Date of Held as ch as four o effective
Further on assessee
(A) to the uently, the tion of the the part of Assessing filed part
Assessing made by the above e has not n of the its nsel of the the file of , we feel it ), however and total mpose cost the same f receipt of ndonca In uction: The y heard an rder of the ssessment ding non- ore lower ns cited by ndoned the that the roceedings
A). Despite ot respond the appeal he lack of compliance a the ITAT foun the assessee the assessee
Fund within 3
Further in la
Nirman Foun
R/Tax Appea
30/07/2019
Assessee rem appeal decide parte order. T passed by th assessee faile final hearing cannot be ter the CIT (A) af question of fa assessee was the CIT (A) is assessee rem circumstances and decide th
In view of th notices and f with that of th the appeal is 8.1 To sum up well as on no 2.2 While there ca assessee is duty bo equally trite that the not contemplated by merits, based upon th
2.3 In the present c has indeed remained
ITA and non-participation by the assessee.
nd it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.
for its non-compliant behaviour. The ITA to deposit the cost into the Prime Minis
30 days of the receipt of the order”.
andmark decision in the case of CIT ndation Charitable Trust (Gujarat Hig al No. 1335 of 2018 Date of Judgeme while deciding the issue under consid mained absent on more than one occas ed on merits then whether it will be call
The Hon’ble High Court states that if an he CIT (A) on merits despite the fact ed to appear before the CIT (A) at the ti of the appeal, the order passed by t med as ex-prate. An order having been p fter service of notices on the assessee, th ailure of natural justice. It cannot be said s not given an opportunity of hearing. Th more than clear. On more than one occ mained absent before the CIT (A), and s, the CIT had no option but to look into th he appeal on its own merit.
he above the primary onus of complyi furnishing the evidence/documentary evi he appellant. In view of the above non- c dismissed.
up appeal is dismissed on all grounds on ncompliance accordingly.”
an be no quarrel with the pri ound to diligently prosecute h dismissal of an appeal for defau the statute. What is required i he material available on record.
case, what weighs with us is th d unresponsive on multiple occ
Jaykar Shetty
5
A No. 3528/MUM/2025
However,
5,000 on T directed ster Relief
Vs Shree gh Court) ent/Order:
deration if sions and led as Ex- n order is t that the ime of the the CIT(A) passed by here is no d that the he order of casion, the d in such he records ing to the idence are compliance merits as inciple that the his appeal, it is ult simpliciter is is a disposal on hat the assessee casions, thereby displaying negligence
Nonetheless, the int served if one more op its case before the assessee diligently co same time, it is made take the process of l part shall entitle th merits, on the basis with law.
3. In view of the for order of the Ld. CIT adjudication on me assessee. The assess without fail. The Ld speaking order in acc assessee is according
3. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (SUCHITRA RAGHU
JUDICIAL M
ITA e in the conduct of the appella terest of substantial justice w pportunity is afforded to the ass
Ld. CIT(A), subject to the con ooperates in the proceedings h e clear that the assessee cannot law for granted, and any furthe he Ld. CIT(A) to decide the ap of material available on record egoing discussion, we set aside
(A) and restore the matter to h erits, after affording due oppo see is directed to cooperate in d. CIT(A), in turn, shall pass a cordance with law. The ground gly allowed for statistical purpos the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court.
d/- UNATH KAMBLE)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Jaykar Shetty
6
A No. 3528/MUM/2025
ate proceedings.
would be better essee to present ndition that the hereafter. At the t be permitted to er failure on its ppeal strictly on d, in accordance e the impugned his file for fresh ortunity to the the proceedings a reasoned and of appeal of the ses.
is allowed for d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated: 09/09/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ITA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Jaykar Shetty
7
A No. 3528/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai