KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, ()
Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 &
12.06.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)
Delhi for assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16
Kambare Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd.
the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No.
2784/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 2784/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, however an application for seeking adjournment has been placed on record. From the case records, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before
Ld. CIT(A) therefore we dismiss the application for seeking adjournment. Contra, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
3. From the records we noticed that there is delay in filing the present appeal, therefore after going through the contents of the application and also hearing Ld. DR and considering the entire factual position as noticed by us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition
Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non- deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance.
Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the AY 2014-15 & 2015-16
Kambare Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd.
expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
3. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee we are of the view that since the assessee could not put effective representation before
Ld. CIT(A). Therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
4. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 2785/Mum/2025 AY 2015-16
as the facts and circumstances in this appeal are identical to ITA No. 2784/Mum/2025for the AY 2014-15 (except AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kambare Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd.
variance in figures) would apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2025 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai:
Dated: 24/07/2025
Divya R. Nandgaonkar
Stenographer
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.