NET STICK INTERACTIVE (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9154/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 April 2026AY 2016-174 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 found that the assessee's initial request for withdrawal was unequivocal and the subsequent adjournment did not negate it. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in disposing of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC. The assessee later sought to withdraw the appeal before the CIT(A) and then requested an adjournment without formally withdrawing the earlier request. The CIT(A) disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's conduct. The validity of the reopening proceedings and additions made by the AO were also raised as grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 151,Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR)
Hearing: 10.03.2026Pronounced: 02.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 9154/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Net Stick Interactive (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company Ward 13 (1) (1), 110, Linkway Estate, New Mumbai Link Road, Malad (West), Room No. 225, Aayakar Mumbai Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN/GIR No. AADCN3935D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2016-17. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. That the learned AO, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, has grossly erred both in law and on facts in computing the income

2 ITA No. 9154/Mum/2025

of the appellant at Rs. 2,95,40,960/- as against the income returned at Rs. 2,19,660/- in an order of assessment dated 30.05.2023 framed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is invalid and bad in law as the Ld. JAO has sought approval u/s 151 of the Act from a non designated authority. 3. That the Ld AO has grossly erred on additions made in the order of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and liable to be quashed as the Ld. AO has failed to assess income for which reasons were recorded for reopening u/s 148 of the Act, thereby barring him for making addition on any other issue not included in the reason for reopening, the same has been helh by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 4 That the Ld. AO has grossly erred on addition of Rs.2,92,62,030/ - on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act which was disclosed by the appellant assessee in its financials 5. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred on addition of Rs.59,268/- u/s 69C of the Act on an estimated basis without proper justification in this regard. 6. That the learned AO has erred both in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the instance case, learned AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was no concealment as such ”

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records, we noticed that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post as well as email. More than one month has passed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee in Form 36, therefore, drawing an inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service of summons/notice has been duly effected.

3 ITA No. 9154/Mum/2025

2.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

3.

From the records, we also noticed that the assessee had filed an application during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) seeking withdrawal of the appeal and later requested an adjournment.

4.

However, considering the totality of the facts, we find that the assessee initially made a very unequivocal request for withdrawal of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and later sought an adjournment without withdrawing the earlier request. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, grounds raised by the assessee stands rejected.

5.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

4 ITA No. 9154/Mum/2025

Mumbai, Dated 02/04/2026 RY, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →