MARATHON FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 16(2), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay and the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT either.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance and the assessee's request for a reasonable opportunity to be heard, along with grounds challenging additions made under Section 68 and disallowance of expenses.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3296/Del/2026 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Marathon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 303-304, Laxman Place Ward – 16(2) 19 Veer Savarkar Block, New Delhi Shakarpur Delhi New Delhi – 110 092 PAN: AAACM 5536 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 21.07.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.08.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 26 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013- 14.
ITA No.3296/Del/2026 Marathon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Hon’ble CIT(A) Assessment order dated 20/08/2025 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 is illegal, void, contrary to the law and passed without affording proper/reasonable opportunity of being heard resulting the entire Additions which are suo-moto which is liable to be quashed. Full argument shall be advanced at the time of the hearing. 2. The honable CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by passing the assessment order dated 20/08/2025 hurried manner, despite having time for affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as appears from the order. Hence, the order is liable to be quashed. Full argument shall be advanced at the time of the hearing. 3. The honable CIT(A) has erred in law by passing an order u/s 144, without fulfilling the ingredients of Ser. 144. Hence the order is liable to be cancelled. Full argument shall be advanced at the time of the hearing. 4. The honable CIT(A) has erred on facts and law by making additions of Rs. 9,34,76,025/- u/s 68 treating the entire share application money/ unsecure loan as unexplained and Rs. 52,53,970/- dis-allowance of expenses as its contrary there are no any adverse material on record. Therefore, the additions are liable to be deleted. Full argument will be advanced at the time of the hearing. 5. The honable CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by making the additions of Rs. 9,34,76,025/- u/s 68 and allowance of expenses as there was no any adverse material on record. Therefore the additions are liable to be deleted. Full argument will be and notice at the time of hearing. 6. The honable CIT(A) has erred in law in by directing for charging interest u/s 234A, B & C,D. Full argument shall be advanced at the time of the hearing. 7. The honable CIT(A) has erred in law initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC(1) of the 1961 Act. Full argument shall be advanced at the time of the hearing. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or to raise any other ground at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 331 days in filing of appeal. WE further note that the order of the CIT(A) has been passed exparte, as the assessee did not make requisite compliance before him. 4. Before us, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In the larger interest of
ITA No.3296/Del/2026 Marathon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of appeal and grant one more opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is restored back to him for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A), failing which the Ld. CIT(A) will be free to proceed on merits. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.07.2026. Priti Yadav, Sr. PS*, Pooja. Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026