ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ARSHIYA LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6165/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee's representation and submissions, decided to allow the revenue's appeals without delving into the merits. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2011-12 and 2018-19. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal on multiple dates and did not file any submissions or corroborative details.

What were the issues?

The key issues involved the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, addition on account of accommodation entry, allowability of advertisement expenses, and classification of capital gains on land with a warehouse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 50

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3952/MUM/2015
ITA No.6165/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3952/MUM/2015 & ITA No.6165/Mum/2025 (AYs: 2011-12 & 2018-19) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), vs. Arsiiiya Limited Room No 453, 4111 Floor, Kautilya 1107. Arshiya Ftwz, Post Sai Village, Bhavan, G Block, BKC, Bandra(E) Bhomnagar Taluka Panvel, 410206.. Mumbai 400051,. PAN/GIR No: AAAC12679A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Bharti Singh (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing 29.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These appeals filed by the revenue emanate from the orders passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioners of

Income-tax, Appeals-16 and 54, Mumbai dated 27.03.2015 and 29.07.2025 for

the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 and 2018-19 respectively. Both the appeals

were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience

and brevity.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in ITA No.3952/Mum/2015

(AY 2011-12) are as under:

“1. "Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in directing the assessing officer to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D. The Ld CIT(A) ignored the investment made in subsidiary companies can't be ground for the a non- applicability of section 14A to the Act." 1

2.

"Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in directing the assessing officer to delete the addition made on account of accommodation entry. The Ld CIT(A) had ignored that the assesse had not been able to substantiate the transaction and the exact nature thereof and categorical admittance on the part of the office bearers of the assesse company which was purely non-genuine transaction, and the interest cost incurred by the assesse on the loans obtained from the Consortium Bank lenders and the same having been invested for the purpose of making such payment of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- as and by the way of an accommodation entry."

3.

"Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in directing the assessing officer to allow the expenses made on account of advertisement expenses while the assesse had not furnished the details/document and break up of the expenditure incurred on account of advertisement& business promotion.” 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue ITA No.6165/Mum/2025 (AY

2018-19) are as under:

“a) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)has erred in holding that the Capital Gain on sale of land will be considered Long Term, even though the warehouse building on the land is part of a block of depreciable asset without considering that the land on which the ware house stands is an integral part of the business asset of the assessee and the same is inseparable from the building, which loses its character when a building is constructed on it and hence the transfer of the same would attract the provisions of section 50 of the Act?"

b) The appellant craves leave, to add, amend and/ or alter any of the ground of appeal if need be.”

4.

The cases were fixed for hearing on multiple dates, the last four being

20.07.2026, 24.07.2026, 28.07.2026 and 29.07.2026. Though none appeared on

behalf of the assessee on 20.07.2026, the Ld. AR of the assessee attended on 24.07.2026 and requested for adjournment. The case was adjourned to

28.07.2026 and both parties were informed accordingly in the open court.

However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 28.07.2026 and 29.07.2026

nor any request for adjournment was filed. The appellant has also not filed any

written submission and corroborative details against the grounds of appeal raised

by the revenue. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in prolonging the

litigation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of

India (Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009) has held that it is axiomatic that no

Court or Tribunal is supposed to continue proceedings before it when the party

who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal,

therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possess. The Hon’ble High

Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Nandramdas

Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 206 while deciding the case. It is now well settled that

the Tribunal has the power to decide the appeal if the assessee was not

represented despite adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard

granted to it. The assessee has not controverted the grounds raised by the

revenue by filing submission and necessary details. Therefore, without delving

into the merits of the case, the appeal of the revenue is allowed. However, liberty

is granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the

reasons for non-compliance to the notices issued to it. 3

5.

In the result appeals of the revenue are allowed.

Order is pronounced on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 31.08.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →