RUSHABH MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,LOWER PAREL vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1207/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2014-153 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 for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and represent its case despite opportunities. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the NFAC confirming the AO's action of assessing income and treating certain commissions as rental income. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings and did not file any submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of representation. The merits of treating commission as rental income and potential double taxation were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 194H,Section 194 I,Section 4,Section 5,Section 253,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Biyayananda Pruseth (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Biyayananda Pruseth (AM)

ITA No. 1207/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Rushabh Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1) A-404, Casa Grande Tower Aayakar Bhavan Near Matulya Mill Compound M.K. Road S.B. Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. PAN : AACCR2839K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Respondent by Shri Umashankar Prasad Date of Hearing 20.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026

ORDER Per Bijayananda Pruseth (AM) :

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals [in short ‘CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.11.2025 for Assessment Year (in short A.Y.) 2014-15.

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :-

Ground No. 1: Challenged the entire Appellate order: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the income of the Appellant at ₹25,325,333/-.

2.

The Appellant prays that the action of lower authorities be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above Ground:

Ground No. 2: Treatment of finance insurance and other commission as rental income: ₹83,48,458/-:

Section: 194H and 194 I:

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred confirming the action of the AO of treating the amount of ₹8,348,458/-as rental

2 ITA No. 1207/Mum/2026 Rushabh Motors Pvt. Ltd.

income on the ground that the same has not been considered by the Appellant while computing the rental income though the Appellant has offered the same to tax in its return of income.

2.

The Appellant is that the action of the lower authorities be deleted. Without prejudice to above

Ground No. 3: Double taxation of the same income: ₹8,348,458/-:

Sections: 4 and 5 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of taxing the same income twice in the hand of the Appellant which is contrary to the objects and intent of the statutory provisions of the Act.

2.

The Appellant prays that the action of the lower authorities be deleted.

Ground No. 4: General:

Section 253 and 254 r.w.r. 11 The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, and/or vary all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.

3.

The case was posted for hearing on 30.04.2026. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment filed. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 20.05.2026. However, again, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared on the date of hearing. The assessee has also not filed any request for adjournment. It has also not filed any written submission and corroborative details in support of the grounds of appeal. 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 matter. It is now well settled that the Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal if the assessee was not represent its case despite adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard granted to it. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, liberty

3 ITA No. 1207/Mum/2026 Rushabh Motors Pvt. Ltd.

is granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reasons for non-compliance to the notices issued to it.

4.

In the result appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai : Dated 26.05.2026

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT-concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file By order

(Dy/Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 194H

All 1,314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194H →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →