M/S. G.R PANDYA SHARE BROKING LTD COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8689/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2026AY 2012-134 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear on the final date of hearing and did not file any written submissions. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order by substantiating the reasons for non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee company did not file its return of income. The assessment was reopened based on information received, and the Assessing Officer (AO) added a portion of cash deposits as commission income. The CIT(A) upheld the reassessment and the addition of commission income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition of commission income. However, the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's failure to prosecute the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8689/MUM/2025 (AY: 2012-13) M/s. G. R. Pandya share broking vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-2(3), Ltd. Company Room No:803, 8th Floor, Pratishtha Flat No. 302, Ganga Vihar, Dixit Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe, Maharishi Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai- Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. 400057. PAN/GIR No: AAACG3748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Nitin Kulkarni (SR DR) Date of Hearing 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.07.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

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

Income Tax, Appeal-48, Mumbai [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 04.09.2025 for the

assessment year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

" 1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in initiating re-assessment proceeding in the case of the appellant without carrying out any independent enquiry that Mr. Narendra Shah left the company on 28/02/2006 and is no more director of the company and he being unauthorised person who opened and operated the bank account in the name of the appellant company by manipulation in collusion with bankers and he is the only beneficiary of the income for which the appellant can not be held liable and responsible under Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in assessing the income in the hands of the appellant on the statement of Mr. Narendra Shah that he is sole authorised signatory of the company without appreciating the fact that Mr. Narendra Shah is no more director of the company since 28/02/2006 and do not have any authorisation of any nature whatsoever he does not have company resolution / company seal / company letter head/ company authorisation and he opened the bank account and/or operated the said bank account from his Borivali office in collusion with bankers for his cheque discounting business activity for earning discounting charges of which he is the sole beneficiary. There is no evidence of his sole authorisation produced before the A.O. at the time of hearing when the appellant has filed form no. 32 reflecting the fact that Mr. Narendra Shah and Mr. Mahesh Shah are no more director of the company since, 28/02/2006 when search was carried out at the premises of the appellant revealing the fact that Mr. Narendra shah has operated the bank account for his sole benefits. The appellant company is not responsible for any act of unauthorised person and is not liable to income tax for any benefit received by such unauthorised person who is neither share holder nor authorised in any manner whatsoever.

3.

In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. erred in estimating the commission income arbitrarily on the basis of assumption and presumption as against the statement of Mr. Narendra Shah having carried out cheque discounting business to earn cheque discounting commission which is on one side of bank account and the gross income is subject to various expenses of his Borivali office and his staff. The Narendra Shah is the only beneficiary of such account opened and operated by him without any authorization. The appellant has recently given public notice in two news paper English and Marathi to the public that Narendra Shah / Mahesh Shah has nothing to do with the appellant company.

4.

In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceeding against the innocent appellant for the unlawful act of unauthorised person Mr. Narendra Shah who opened and operated the bank account in the name of appellant company from his Borivali Office by manipulating the documents since, he was not a director during the period under consideration.

5.

The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or delete any or all grounds of appeal.

6.

The appellant prays that returned income be accepted and the addition of estimated commission income earned by Mr. Narendra Shah be deleted in the hands of the appellant company in the interest of justice and or appropriate relief.”

3.

The case was posted for hearing on 03.02.2026, 18.03.2026, 07.04.2026,

23.04.2026, 17.06.2026 and 22.07.2026. The case was adjourned thrice on the

request of the learned authorized representative (AR) of the assessee. However,

none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the final date of hearing on 22.07.2026

nor any request for adjournment nor written submission was filed. Hence, no useful

purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings before us. The case is,

accordingly, decided on the basis of materials available on record.

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee did not filed return of income

for the AY 2012-13. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the DDIT

(Inv.), Unit-2(2), Mumbai, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice

wasissued u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019. The copy of the reasons recorded was

given to the assessee. After hearing the assessee, the AO added 5% of the total cash

deposit of Rs.4,57,64,100/- as commission income. The total income was accordingly

determined at Rs.22,71,110/-.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The

assessee filed written submission on various dates which has been reproduced by

the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment and also estimation of

commission income. He did not allow claim of the assessee for a 20% deduction for

expenses out of the commission income. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.

6.

Aggrieved by the order CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. As stated earlier, the assessee was granted adequate opportunity of being heard. The request for adjournment was also acceded to. However, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal on the final date of hearing. It has also not requested for adjournment nor filed any written submission along with relevant details/evidences. It is thus clear that the appellant has no specific submissions in support of the grounds raised in the appeal. It is well settled that the Tribunal has the inherent power to dismiss the appeal if the assessee/revenue does not represent its case despite opportunity granted to him. Therefore, without delving further, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reasons for non- appearance and non-compliance to the notices issued to it. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 23.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 23.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The PCIT/CIT 4. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI 4

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →