ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ITO-13 (3) (4) , MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The assessee failed to file a condonation of delay application or provide any sufficient explanation for the 97-day delay, rendering the appeal not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order which upheld the Ld. AO's ex-parte additions under Section 144 for share application money and investment in shares. The appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 97 days.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed with a significant delay, without an application for condonation of delay or sufficient cause, is maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Zyka Merchandise Pvt Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer-13(3)(4) 852, Sudama Nagar, In front of Aayakar Bhawan, MK Road, Jain Mandir, Indore-452009 Mumbai-400020 PAN:AAACZ3842Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None, Respondent by : Shri S. Ambuselvan (SR AR) Date of hearing : 09/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 11/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-3, Bhopal [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2016-17, date of order 06.12.2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(4) Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 144 of the Act date of order 24.12.2018.
When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of assessee to represent his case. There is no application for seeking adjournment either. On perusal of record, we find that the hearings were scheduled on number of dates. But no response from the end of the assessee. The Registry further inform that the appeal is time barred and filed with delay for 97days. In view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appeal ex-parte qua for the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR and on the basis of material available on the record.
We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The Ld. DR submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed ex parte under section 144 of the Act, wherein additions were made on account of share application money pending for allotment amounting to Rs. 8,90,36,000/- and investment in shares of IBD Space Infra Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 58,00,000/-. It was further pointed out that, during the appellate proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 97 days. The Ld. DR strongly relied upon and supported the orders of the revenue authorities.
Upon verification of the record, we find that no petition seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has failed to explain any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. In the absence of any application for condonation of delay and any explanation
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
