DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHREM ROADWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“J (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
DCIT-CC-5(4)
R. No. 436,
4thfloor,Kautilya Bhavan,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-
400 051

Vs. Shrem Roadways
Private Limited,
1101, Viraj Towers,
W.E. Highway,
Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (East)m
Mumbai-400 093

PAN/GIR No. AAYCS1239C
(Applicant)

(Respondent)

Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Assessee by Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. AR

Date of Hearing
05.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement
23.09.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM:

This appeal by revenue is directed against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-49, Mumbai (herein after referred as “Ld. CIT(A)” u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”), whereinthe addition made by the AO was deleted.
2. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the present appeal has been filed by the revenue andhas raised the following grounds before us:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,21,30,921/- u/s 37(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that expenses incurred by the assessee are not related to revenue from operation during the year, thus the same was not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act.
2. On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,21,30,921/- u/s 37(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee has not followed the matching principles of accounting.
3. On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,21,30,921/- u/s 37(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee has entered into Memorandum of Understanding for professional fees in respect of 24 road projects and claimed expenses in respect of all these 24 road projects whereas the assessee has not offered any income from any of these projects.
4. On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,21,30,921/- u/s 37(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was capital in nature and same was not allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.
5. Whether, On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 14A by holding that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income by ignoring the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 which is clarificatory in nature?"
6. "Whether, On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the explanation to the section 14A introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which of the total income?
3. We have heard the Ld. DR and the Ld. AR and examined the record.It was pointed out by the Ld. AR of the assessee that the appeal is barred by limitation. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appeal was barred by 6 days and an affidavit was filed by the DCIT,CC-
5(4), Mumbai seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the affidavit are reproduced below:_
1. I am conversant with the facts of the case and am able to depose to the same.
2. The applicant states that the being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)
(in short CIT(A)), Mumbai in Appeal no. CIT(A) 53, Mumbai/10723/2017-
18 thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the correct facts on record.
3. The applicant states that on 07.03.2025, the office of the Pr.
Commissioner of Income Tax- Central 3 Mumbai received the intimation of passing the order through webmail.
4. The applicant states that, the scrutiny report was called on and the same was submitted by the DCIT-5(4), Mumbai on 28.04.2025. After considering the said scrutiny report and after obtaining clarifications, the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Central 3, Mumbai, vide Authorization
Memo dated 29.05.2025 directed to filing of the present appeal under section 253 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 before the Hon'ble Income tax
Appellate Tribunal.
5. It is submitted that the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional; the appellant is apologetic for the same.
6. The applicant states that the approval of the competent authority dated
29.05.2025 was received directing to file the appeal immediately.
7. Accordingly, the above mentioned Appeal came to be filed 06.06.2025
against due date of filing of appeal of 31.05.2025. Due to the above stated reasons there is delay of 6 days in filing the present Appeal from 01.06.2025 to 06.06.2025. It is submitted that the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional; the appellant is apologetic for the same.
8. The applicant states that gave prejudice will be caused to the Applicant if the Application is not allowed. On the contrary, no harm and prejudice will be caused to the Respondent if the said application is allowed. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant/Appellant.
9. It is submitted that whatever stated hereinabove paragraph are true to the best of my own knowledge and I believe the same to the true.
The applicant/appellant therefore pray:
(d) This Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to condone the delay of 6 days in preferring the instant appeal;
(c) This Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to pass such further order as may be required in the facts & circumstances of the case.
(1) Any other and further reliefs as may be found necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.
4. Ld. AR pointed out that on perusal of relevant para 5,
6 & 7 of the affidavit, no reason has been assigned for seeking condonation of delay, therefore the revenue has prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limini.
5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the affidavit may be considered for condonation of delay.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record as well as affidavit. In order to condone delay, we have to find out whether the appellant has disclosed sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period u/s 253(5) of the Act which reads as under:-
Section 253(5):The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.
7. In relevant para 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit, nothing has been stated as to why despite the direction of the competent authority dated 29.05.2025 to file appeal immediately, what prevented the officer concerned to file the same on time as the same has been filed afterfurther delay of 6 days. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has miserably failed to satisfy the requirement of section 253(5) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any justified reason for admitting the case for hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limini.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2025. (OM PRAKASH KANT)
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
ACCOUNTATN MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 23/09/2025
Dhananjay, SPS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :