DIVYA NAVIN KALRO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4205/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 July 2026AY 2013-143 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 as the assessee failed to provide any substantiation for its claims or explain its non-compliance. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order by showing sufficient cause.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT despite repeated notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition on account of unsubstantiated purchases, which was further enhanced by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal can be dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance and failure to substantiate claims. The validity of additions made by the AO and enhanced by the CIT(A) on account of unsubstantiated purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLENARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE

Pronounced: 14.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER:NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the ASSESSEE against the order dated 26.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the /Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.

ITA 4205/Mum/2026; Divya Navin Kalro

2.

Despite due service of various notices, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the Assessee nor any application seeking adjournment was filed on the earlier occasions. Even today, the Assessee remained absent despite due service of notice.

3.

We observe from the orders passed by the authorities below that the Assessee had failed to substantiate its claim with regard to the purchases amounting to ₹15,99,689/- under consideration. Consequently, the AO estimated the profit @ 12.5% of the said purchases and made an addition of ₹1,99,961/-, whereas the Ld. Commissioner enhanced the addition to 100% of such purchases.

4.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, and in the absence of any material or explanation from the Assessee to controvert the findings recorded by the authorities below, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Assessee to seek recall of this order by substantiating a plausible and sufficient cause for non-compliance with the notices issued by the Tribunal and for non-prosecution of the appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Soumili Das) Private Secretary

ITA 4205/Mum/2026; Divya Navin Kalro

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →