MAPE ADVISORY GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5.3.2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3737/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2013-20145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not verified the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the documents and providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order upholding disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) and for travelling expenses. The assessee claimed to have provided necessary documents, which the revenue authorities allegedly did not verify.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue authorities properly verified the documents submitted by the assessee, and whether the disallowances were justified without such verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Shah
For Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Panaji for the assessment year 2013-14. The following grounds raised by assessee are reproduced below ;-

2 i. Short grant of interest under section 244A of the Act. (a)On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming disallowance amounting to Rs.42,43,825/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b)On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs.8,99,811/- being 10% travelling expenses on adhoc basis. ii. (a) The Appellant craves leave to, alter, amend, add or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal which are independent and without prejudice to each other on or before the date of hearing. (b) The appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based on the said grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance made by the AO under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgment cited before us and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

4.

I found that the both the revenue authorities have adjudicated these grounds by holding that the assessee has 3 not discharged its onus by submitting the documents being relied upon by him, whereas on the contrary Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee drawn attention to the fact that required documents in the shape of computation of total income, ledger of the Mape Finserve Private Limited for AY 2013-14 and ledger of Mape Securities Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2013-14, director’s report, approval letter from MCA under Section 297 etc. were filed which were not verified by any of the authorities.

5.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the present ground, I find that both the revenue authorities have not verified the documents relied upon by the assessee and there is no mention in the entire order of both authorities with regard to the filing of the documents by the assessee and verification of the same and, therefore, I set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this ground and restore the matter back to the file of AO to verify the documents relied upon by the assessee and to pass an order afresh, needless to mention after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in submitting the disallowance being 10% of travelling expenses on adhoc basis.

4

7.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgment cited before us and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

8.

From the records, I noticed that the submissions/documents relied upon by the assessee were not considered, therefore, matter is restored back to the file of AO to adjudicate the same and pass an order afresh, needless to mention after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

9.

Before parting, I make it clear that decision to restore the matter to the file of AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026 (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27/07/2026 Z.U., PS

5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत ////

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →