ITAT Dismisses Multiple Appeals Over Assessee’s Non-Compliance and Repeated Absence:

ITAT Dismisses Multiple Appeals Over Assessee’s Non-Compliance and Repeated Absence The ITAT Mumbai quashed multiple appeals simultaneously based on a similar issue, flagging the assessee's negligent behaviour and non-compliance with income tax rules. The assessee did not appear for a personal hearing despite issuing summons both via speed post and via email. The assessee, Bipin Rajendra Gamre, had filed four appeals in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, challenging an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case belongs to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Also Read

IBC Overrides Income Tax Demands: ITAT Rules NCLT-Approved Plan Nullifies Past Dues, Dismisses Appeal

During the hearing of the case, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee after sending repeated reminders. When the tribunal analysed the case, it noted the assessee was sent summons both through speed post in Form 36 at the address provided by the assessee and also online at his email ID. However, no one attended the personal hearing. It was also observed that an appeal of the present case was also filed 874 days late before the CIT(A), which was also rejected, considering the substantial delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, during the assessment of the case, the assessee was given the opportunity of a personal hearing by the Assessing Officer (AO); however, none appeared for the same. In conclusion, the assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed. Even after the substantial delay of two years, the assessee did not bring concrete evidence before the tribunal or convincing reasons to establish that the assessee was prevented by sufficient or reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time before the CIT(A).

Also Read

United Breweries Faces Rs 22.5 Crore Tax Demand from Maharashtra VAT Authorities, Plans Legal Challenge

Consequently, considering the aforementioned findings, the tribunal rejected all the appeals since they all were based on a similar issue, and no new facts or circumstances were brought to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings. Thus, the CIT(A)'s ruling was upheld.