MAX SPARE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4765/MUM/2026Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 August 2026AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether supporting documents were properly furnished. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to submit documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's application for rectification, which sought credit for advance tax paid. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating no documentary evidence was furnished.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence and whether the rectification application was time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Parth Navandar, C.A, Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.08.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No. 4765/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Max Spare Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income C-44 & C-44A, Road No.28, Tax Circle 4(3)(1) Room No.649, 6th Floor, Aayakar Wagle Estate Thane West, Wagle Vs. I.E. S.O, Thane-400604 Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AADCS6349E Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Parth Navandar, C.A. : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR Revenue by : 17.08.2026 Date of Hearing : 20.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, ADDL/JCIT(A) – 2, Gurugram [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 02.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09, arises from the assessment order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 13.01.2026, passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. AO”].

ITA No. 4765/Mum/2026 Max Spare Limited 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Leamed CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that no documentary evidence had been furnished by the appellant, without appreciating that all relevant evidences were duly filed on record along with written submissions. The said finding is factually incorrect, perverse, and passed without due application of mind and is therefore liable to be set aside. 2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and the computation sheet, wherein there was no outstanding demand and the resultant refund was duly determined. The reflection of outstanding demand is merely a consequence of non-updation of records on the Income Tax portal and does not represent any actual tax liability. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by failing to grant credit for the advance tax of Rs.56,00,000 paid by the appellant and by not carrying out necessary verification, including examination of Form 26AS and advance tax payments despite such information being on record. The impugned order is therefore erroneous, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the appellant's rectification application as time-barred under section 154(7) of the Act, without considering that it was duly filed on 24.09.2010 within the prescribed period and remains undisposed of. 5. The Leamed CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing the order under section 250 of the Act, which is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside, on the following grounds: (a) Failure to consider the paper book and submissions filed by the Appellant; (b) Denial of adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, including lack of personal hearing: (c) Passing the order in a summary manner without proper adjudication and due consideration of evidence and arguments; (d) Resulting in impermissible double taxation despite tax already having been paid by the appellant. 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act, without appreciating that the non-grant of credit for advance tax is a mistake apparent from record warranting rectification. 7. The appellant company craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the return of income filed by the Assessee on 03.02.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 1,48,76,804/-, was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation

ITA No. 4765/Mum/2026 Max Spare Limited dated 12.03.2010. As credit for advance tax of Rs. 56,00,000/- was not granted, resulting in levy of consequential interest, the Assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Act. The AO, however, rejected the said application, vide order dated 13.01.2026 passed under section 154 of the Act.

4.

The Assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. Commissioner and claimed to have furnished written submissions along with supporting documents on 27.02.2026. The Ld. Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by observing that, despite sufficient opportunities, no corroborative material or documentary evidence had been furnished in support of the Assessee's claim.

5.

The acknowledgement relied upon by the Assessee records that the appeal submissions were attached. Thus, it is unclear, whether only the written submissions were uploaded, the supporting documents could not be attached due to some miscommunication, or the documents, though uploaded, remained unexamined.

6.

Without entering into the controversy, as to whether the supporting documents were duly furnished, we observe that the issue requires examination in its proper perspective. The Assessee has undertaken to furnish the relevant submissions and documents afresh.

7.

We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity

ITA No. 4765/Mum/2026 Max Spare Limited of being heard to the Assessee. The Ld. Commissioner shall consider the documents so furnished and, if required, call for a remand report from the AO.

8.

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20-08-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 20-08-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →