IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5865/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15)

प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.168/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 5865/MUM/2024)

(A.Y. 2014-15)

Assessee by : Mr. Akshay & Nishil Jain, ARs Revenueby : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeals preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee emanate from the orders passed by the Svadeshi Enterprises, Mumbai Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15. Since the issues are common and interlinked and also the fact that the appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity.

2. ITA No.5865/MUM/2024 The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are as under:

1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction on account of liability for payment for vacating occupants/tenants ignoring the fact that a mere provision cannot be allowed as an expense ?”

2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction on account of liability for payment for vacating occupants/tenants without appreciating the fact that the assessee has himself stated that they have provided the additional amount of Rs. 3 Crore in FY 2013-14 and the matter is under litigation and therefore such a provision of Rs. 3 Crore during the year does not partake the character of an ascertained/accrued liability ?”

3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers without appreciating that it is not squarely applicable in this case, as facts of the case in this case of the assessee are different from the referred case law?”

Svadeshi Enterprises, Mumbai Grounds of Cross Objection - C.O. No.168/MUM/2025

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by Ld. ITO Ward 17(3)(2), Mumbai is wholly without jurisdiction. It is humbly submitted that as per CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31-01-2011, if the declared income of a corporate assessee is more than Rs. 30 lakhs, the jurisdiction of the assessee case lies with ACIT/DCIT and not with ITO. In the present case, for AY 2014-15, the assessee has declared total income of 2,56,43,720/-. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid instruction, the jurisdiction of the assessee case lies with ACIT/DCIT and not with ITO. Hence, the assessment order passed by Ld. ITO is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

3. The C.O. is delayed by 174 days.In this regard, the assessee has contended that the delay was caused by inadvertent mistake on part of the Accountant of the assessee whose affidavit was also filed before the Bench. It was stated by him inter alia that he is employed as an Accountant with the assessee Firm. For the relevant year, the Revenue had filed an appeal on 12.11.2024, and the notice of appeal was received on 20.12.2024. The cross-objection arising out of Appeal No. 5865/Mum/2024 was required to be filed on or before 18.01.2025.The consultant of the Firm had instructed him file the cross-objection before the Hon'ble ITAT within the prescribed time. Due to an inadvertent oversight on his part, he failed to file the cross-objection within the stipulated period. This lapse occurred solely due tohis mistake and not due to any negligence or intention on the part of the assessee. When the Svadeshi Enterprises, Mumbai assessee sought an update regar