RUCHI STOCK & SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7653/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 February 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ITAT noted that none attended the hearing and no adjournment application was filed, leading to the inference that the assessee was not keen to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal perused the orders of the authorities below and found that the CIT(A) had duly considered the detailed submissions of the assessee before dismissing the appeal on merits. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate order of the CIT(A), which upheld the addition made by the AO. Consequently, the grounds of appeal and the appeal of the assessee were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution, and if the lower authorities have considered the submissions on merits, the Tribunal may uphold their order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ruchi Stock and Securities Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18 and challenges an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 34,30,000/- to the assessee's total income, representing an unsecured loan from Piyali Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., which was treated as unexplained. This addition was confirmed by the CIT(A), leading to the present appeal. The ITAT noted that none attended the hearing, and no adjournment was filed, inferring the assessee was not keen to pursue the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in adding the entire amount of loan taken amounting to Rs. 34,30,000/- to the total income of the Appellant as unexplained unsecured loans, considering that responses were submitted to a notice under Section 133(6), the addition was based on suspicion and presumption, information was received from other income tax authorities, third-party statements were used, there was no proof of cash refund, general data of the loan creditor was wrongly correlated, and an opportunity for cross-examination was not provided. 2. Whether the AO wrongly charged interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A(1). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition by wrongly rejecting all detailed submissions of the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The addition was made on suspicion and conjectures, and suspicion alone without specific evidence cannot be the basis for taxation. Each transaction must be inquired into independently. The AO relied on information from other authorities and third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions, but it notes that the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action based on information received and found that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan remained unsubstantiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 270A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 12.02.2026Pronounced: 18.02.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

26.09.

2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A)-7,

Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment

order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter

referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. A.Y. 2017-18 Ruchi Stock and Securities Put. Ltd.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:

1.

Inthe facts and the circumstances of the case an

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →