RAJNISH WELLNESS LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. ITO , MUMBAI

ITA 3471/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves Rajnish Wellness Limited appealing against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, which dismissed their appeal due to non-prosecution. The original dispute arose from the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,38,389 under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to sales promotion expenses, following a limited scrutiny of the assessee's return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer had issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, but the assessee failed to comply, leading to the disallowance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the condonation of delay or the additional evidence application, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773135 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAMKOSURI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 142(1); 37(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3471/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajnish Wellness Limited, 6th Floor, Navjivan Commercial, Lamington road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. PAN : AAHCR3491G vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-03-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income which was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the genuineness of the large scale promotion expenses. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) were issued calling for the necessary Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3471/Mum/2025 details and documentation in support of the sales promotion expenses. However, there was no compliance on part of the assessee and the AO thereafter, passed the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dt. 05-01-2021 wherein the amount of Rs. 2,85,38,389/- was disallowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the appeal so filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) due to non-prosecution. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. Considering that notices issued have been duly served on the assessee and there has been non-compliance and the matter has been adjourned from time to time, it was decided that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further and to decide the matter based on material available on record. 4. Heard the Ld.DR and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that there was delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) by 1413 days and the assessee has submitted a condonation application explanation as to why there was a delay in filing the appeal and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. Further, the assessee has sought permission of the Ld. CIT(A) to furnish additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating upon the application so filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay has dismissed the appeal on account of non- prosecution. Further, there is no adjudication on the application seeking furnishing of the additional evidences under Rule 46A so filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3471/Mum/2025 5. In light of the same, we deem it appropriate to set aside to the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh including condonation of delay as well as application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the assessee is also provided one more opportunity, where the matter could be represented before the Ld.CIT(A). In light of the same, the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 24-09-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [RAHUL CHAUDHARY] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 24-09-2025 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "