INDIGO METALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4955/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 April 2025AY 2011-12Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)3 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 assessee's application for condonation of delay, noting the prolonged non-cooperation and repeated non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed on merits due to the assessee's failure to present any arguments or evidence to rebut the revenue authorities' findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 for AY 2011-12 with a delay of 347 days, citing misplacement of the CIT(A) order. The assessee consistently failed to appear before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal, resulting in ex-parte proceedings at all stages.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Assessee's non-cooperation and repeated non-appearance leading to ex-parte proceedings; Dismissal of appeal on merits for lack of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 24.04.2025

Date of Hearing 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 08.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, we noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee when the case was called repeatedly. On going through the case file, we noticed that today is the 12th opportunity and even on the last date of hearing assessee had sought adjournment. Still today neither adjournment application has been filed on behalf of the assessee nor assessee or his representative appeared.

3.

On the other hand Ld. DR present in the court is ready with arguments, therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.

4.

We noticed that there is delay of 347 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an affidavit has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned that copy of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was kept in drawer and it slipped from the mind of the assessee and because of that reason the delay of 347 days had occurred.

5.

On further going through the case record we found that assessee was ex-parte before AO and ex-parte order of assessment was passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. Even before Ld. CIT(A) assessee has not submitted any documents or written submissions and remained ex-parte. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) also passed ex-parte order in the absence of any assistance from the assessee. Overall conduct of the assessee goes to show that assessee is a “Habitual Defaulter” and has not cooperated at any stage with the revenue authorities and has not even put his appearance before us at the time of hearing. Therefore considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed by us above we dismiss the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay and also dismiss the present appeal on merits as nothing has been placed before us to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the revenue authorities. Therefore present appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

6.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 24/04/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

1.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →