INDIGO METALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
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?
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
Date of Hearing 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/-.
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//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026