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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“C” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indigo Metalloys Pvt Ltd
Office No. 2,3,4 & 5 Shivneri
Bldg, Mughbhat Lane,
Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 004
Vs.
DCIT – 5(1)(1)
Aayakar Bhavan, MK
Road, Mumbai – 400
020. PAN/GIR No. AABCI8026L
(Applicant)
(Respondent)

Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing
22.04.2025
Date of Pronouncement
24.04.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

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

2
Indigo Metalloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 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 3
Indigo Metalloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 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. (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 24/04/2025

KRK, PS

आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////