BALARAM MHATRE,DOMBIVLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KALYAN

ITA 921/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Balaram Mhatre, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The primary issues in the appeal were the validity of the reopening under section 147 of the Income Tax Act and the addition of Rs. 33,58,000 made under section 69C in the assessment order. The assessee contested that a similar addition had already been made in AY 2018-19, which was under appeal. The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented, including a screenshot of the ITBA portal showing the detailed submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had made a protective addition without specifying the facts regarding the year of substantive addition and thus restored the matter to the AO for further verification and action based on the outcome of AY 2018-19.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314104 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 921/Mum/2025 (AY: 2019-20) (Physical hearing) Balaram Mhatre, 1103/04, Building No. 17/C, Freesia Regency Estate, Kalyan Shil Road, Near Jhondale Engineering College, Dombiwali (E), Mumbai-421203, PAN. AEKPM 4401 P Vs Income Tax Officer, Rani Mansion Murbad Road, Kalyan. Appellant (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Subodh Ratanparkhi CA Department Represented by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr DR Date of Conclusion of hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement of Order : 05.05.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) dated 1301.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, in our considered view, the substantial grounds of appeal relates to validity of reopening under section 147 and the addition of Rs.33,58,000/- made under section 69C in the assessment order dated 12.02.2024. 2. Rival submissions of Learned Authorised Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee and Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) have been heard and record perused. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that case of assessee for AY 2019-20 was reopened on the basis of information that assessee purchased ITA No. 921/Mum/2025 Balaram B. Mhatre (AY 2019-20) 2 immovable property form GNP Group and made payment of on money of Rs. 38,58,000/-. The assessee objected to the reopening and besides other submissions, the assessee submitted that addition of similar amount has already been made in AY 2018-19, which is subject matter of further appeal before ld CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded for assessment and made addition of Rs. 38,58,000/- on protective basis. On further appeal before ld CIT(A), the action of AO was upheld in ex-parte order. The ld CIT(A) not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merit despite the facts that the assessee filed his detailed submissions and various evidence on 15.04.2024, copy of screen shot of ITBA portal is filed. The ld AR of the assessee submits that once the additions of similar amount was added in earlier year, it cannot be added again, so the assessment order may be quashed. The ld AR of the assessee in alternative submissions and in all his fairness submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of Jurisdictional AO to verify such facts and to pass order after order in appeal for AY 2018-19. 3. On the other hand, Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities and would submits that the addition is to be made in the year in which the assessee made payment of impugned money to GNP Group. On the alternative submissions the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that he has no objection if the matter is restored back to the file of AO. 4. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that the AO made ITA No. 921/Mum/2025 Balaram B. Mhatre (AY 2019-20) 3 addition of Rs. 38,58,000/- under section 69B on protective basis. We find that the stand of the assessee even before AO was that the same amount has already been added in earlier year. Despite recording such fact, the AO has not countered such fact and made addition by taking view that as per information available with him the assessee has made cash payment in AY 2019-20. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO in ex-parte order. On considering the peculiar facts of the case that the AO has made protective addition without specifying the facts as to in which year the substantive addition is made, the matter is restored back to the file of jurisdictional AO to verify the fact and if similar amount is added in AY 2018-19, passed order afresh after outcome of decision in AY 2018- 19. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBERs MUMBAI, DATED: 05.05.2025 Self Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "