M/S RONIT MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 13(3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits due to the assessee's absence, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to provide details regarding the cash credit and investments made.
What were the facts?
The assessee company filed its return of income declaring ₹5240/- which was picked up for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made additions for disallowance under Section 14A (₹3,02,671) and for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 (₹15,31,271), determining the total income at ₹18,39,180. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO for disallowance under Section 14A and for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 were justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming these additions without deciding on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 14A,Section 8D,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Ronit mercantile Private Limited (assessee /appellant) for A.Y. 2017-18, against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 4th October, 2023, wherein appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24th December, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer), was dismissed.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the
Aggrieved with the appellate order assessee preferred the appeal before us. In appeal before us also despite service of notice, none appeared before us. Further, the appeal filed before us is late by 58 days but an affidavit of the director of the company is filed for condonation of delay stating that the delay has occurred because of the illness of the advocate of the assessee. 06. The ld DR was heard on merits as well as on condonation of delay in filing appeal. 07. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that by filing the appeal late, the assessee does not gain anything and the reasons shown in the affidavit are also not stated to be with other motive and therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2024.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026