What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dismiss the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee's failure to provide substantial evidence led to this outcome.

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order. The appeal was listed multiple times, but the assessee failed to make any compliance or submit substantial evidence. Consequently, the appeal was decided ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to submit evidence.

Gospell Digital Technology Pvt… vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19.

In the instant case, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed dated 18.03.2021 against which the Assessee filed first appeal on dated 06.04.2021, which was taken on consideration only on 09.07.2024 and thereafter on 25.07.2024, 12.08.2024 & 30.08.2024. The Assessee except seeking adjournments on the aforesaid four occasions, eventually made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner finding no option, decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and dismissed the same by holding that the Assessee has failed to submit any substantial evidence to overturn the decision made by the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) in the impugned assessment order, therefore it has been construed that the Assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Court.

This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the Assessee for non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner as the Assessee except seeking repetitive adjournments made no compliance and therefore this Court is inclined not to interfere in the impugned order, however, considering the peculiar fact that issue involved remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant reply/documents, which the Assessee failed to file and therefore for the substantial justice and just decision of the case and considering the conduct of the Assessee, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.2200/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” without claiming any allowance/deduction of the same and within 15 days of the receipt of this order.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2025.

GOSPELL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,15(1)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments