MOON TECHNOLABS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMADABAD V. ADDITIONAL 0R JOINT COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1997/AHD/2025

AI Insights

Moon Technolabs Private Limited appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, which confirmed certain disallowances made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issues included the disallowance of an Income Tax Expense of ₹3,47,730 and a Donation Expense of ₹12,500, both of which the assessee argued were erroneously double disallowed. Additionally, there was an erroneous reference to a non-refundable deposit of ₹50,00,000 in the appellate order, which was not part of the original assessment or appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found procedural lapses in the handling of the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh examination, emphasizing the need for the assessee to comply with procedural requirements and substantiate their claims adequately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837541 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEERBADRAM VISLAVATH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAYKUMAR M KHATIK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1997/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Moon Technolabs Private Limited, C-105A, Ganesh Meridian, Opp. Kargil Petrol Pump, S.G Highway, Sola Ahmedabad-380061. [PAN :AAICM0212D] Vs. Addl/Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sanjaykumar M Khatik, AR Respondent by: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. The order passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Ground No. 1-Disallowance of Income Tax Expense of ₹3,47,730/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1997/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹3,47,730/- towards Income Tax Expense. b) The learned authorities failed to appreciate that the said Income Tax Expense was never claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income, as the computation was based on Profit Before Tax (PBT) as per audited financial statements. c) The addition made by the Assessing Officer results in double disallowance of the same item and is, therefore, erroneous and unsustainable in law. d) The disallowance made without verification of the computation of income and ITR filed (acknowledgment no. 333984891131018) is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, therefore, prays that the disallowance of 23,47,730/- be deleted. 3. Ground No. 2-Disallowance of Donation Expense of ₹12,500/- a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of 212,500/- towards donation expenses. b) The appellant submits that the said donation expense was already disallowed by the assessee in the computation of income under Schedule BP (Item No. 23) of the ITR filed (acknowledgment no. 333984891131018). c) Therefore, the further disallowance of the same amount by the Assessing Officer leads to double addition, which is apparent on the face of the record. d) The action of the learned authorities is unjustified and not in accordance with law. The appellant, therefore, prays that the disallowance of 212,500/- be deleted. 4. Ground No. 3-Erroneous Reference to Non-Refundable Deposit of ₹50,00,000/- a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in making observations and findings in the impugned order under section 250 regarding a so-called \"non-refundable deposit of ₹50,00,000/-\", which was never a subject matter of appeal, addition, or disallowance before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1997/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– b) The appellant most respectfully submits that no such issue, transaction, or disallowance relating to any non-refundable deposit of 250,00,000/- ever arose in the assessment proceedings or in the statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed before the learned CIT(A). c) The inclusion of this point in the appellate order is wholly inadvertent, factually incorrect, and beyond the scope of the appeal. The same deserves to be expunged from the record as it is not based on any material available on file. d) The appellant, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly ignore, delete, or direct the correction of this erroneous reference in the impugned appellate order, as the same has no relevance to the appellant's case for A.Y. 2018-19. 3. On perusal of the record, we find that notices of hearing were issued on several occasions, however, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents. It is noted from the records that the assessee was specifically asked, through notice, to explain the delay and to file a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit or supporting evidence. Despite being afforded adequate opportunity, the assessee has not submitted any explanation or request for condonation of delay. Thus, in the absence of any application for condonation and no material available on record, the appeal was held to be not maintainable and accordingly dismissed in limine. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities explaining the reasons for condonation of delay. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all relevant bank statements and documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1997/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 4– 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 17.02.2026 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "