BHAVIN MAHENDRA KHATRI,C-30, AMBAJI APARTMENT PRIYAMOHAN CHS, ,DEVIDAYALC V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILIYA BHAVAN

ITA 7247/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shital Bhavin Khatri, the legal representative of the late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 77,50,284 to the Assessee's income, which was based on a discrepancy between the gross receipts reflected in Form No. 26AS and the turnover disclosed in the Assessee's books. The Assessee contended that this amount had already been recognized as income in the preceding financial year, leading to a timing mismatch in tax deduction and income recognition. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's claims, leading to the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840226 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH KAMAT
• Assessee Lawyers: JAINAM GALA; VICJEY CHHEDA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 1401 Balaji Apartment, Devidayal Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 – 43, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block BKC, Bilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ALLPK 4598 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Jainam Gala, CA & Mr. Vicjey Chheda Revenue by : Mr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 24/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11th September 2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16. Printed from counselvise.com 2. The solitary grievance of the Assessee relates to the sustenance of an addition amounting to on a discrepancy between the gross receipts reflected in Form No. 26AS and the turnover disclosed in the A account. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of a civil contractor under the proprietary concern M/s Shilpi Associates the assessee filed his return of income on 28th March 2016, declaring a total income of subsequently selected for limited scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted the assessee received Rs.79,28,938/ India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.24,55,693/ Limited, aggregating to Rs.1,03,84,631/ loss account of the assessee reflected sa 4. The Assessee contended that the differential amount of ₹77,50,284/- had already been recognized as income in the preceding financial year (F.Y. 2013 15. It was submitted that the deductors had transactions and deducted tax (TDS) in the subsequent year (F.Y. 2014-15), resulting in a timing mismatch. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, to both the parties. M/s Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) The solitary grievance of the Assessee relates to the sustenance of an addition amounting to ₹77,50,284/ on a discrepancy between the gross receipts reflected in Form No. 26AS and the turnover disclosed in the Assessee’s books of Briefly stated, the facts are that the Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of a civil contractor under the proprietary M/s Shilpi Associates. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 28th March 2016, declaring a total income of ₹10,55,750/-. The case was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that as per Form No. 26AS, the assessee received Rs.79,28,938/- from M/s Brooks Brothers India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.24,55,693/- from M/s Reliance Brands Limited, aggregating to Rs.1,03,84,631/-. However, the profit and loss account of the assessee reflected sales of Rs.65,81,057/ The Assessee contended that the differential amount of had already been recognized as income in the preceding financial year (F.Y. 2013-14) corresponding to A.Y. 2014 15. It was submitted that the deductors had accounted for the transactions and deducted tax (TDS) in the subsequent year (F.Y. 15), resulting in a timing mismatch. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, to both the parties. M/s Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 2 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 The solitary grievance of the Assessee relates to the 77,50,284/-, predicated on a discrepancy between the gross receipts reflected in Form No. ssessee’s books of Briefly stated, the facts are that the Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of a civil contractor under the proprietary . For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 28th March 2016, . The case was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny. During the scrutiny that as per Form No. 26AS, from M/s Brooks Brothers from M/s Reliance Brands . However, the profit and les of Rs.65,81,057/- only. The Assessee contended that the differential amount of had already been recognized as income in the 14) corresponding to A.Y. 2014- accounted for the transactions and deducted tax (TDS) in the subsequent year (F.Y. 15), resulting in a timing mismatch. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, to both the parties. M/s Printed from counselvise.com Reliance Brands Ltd. responded by denying havi in financial year 2013 Brooks Brother India Pvt. Ltd. The AO, noting a denial of transactions in F.Y. 2013 lack of response from M/s Brooks Brothers, treated the e of ₹77,50,284/- as undisclosed income for the impugned year. 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the Assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving that the receipts were offered to tax in the Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the absence of third confirmations or audited reconciliations, the credit appearing in Form 26AS for the current year must be deemed as the \"real income\" of the year in which the tax was deducted. finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced “5.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 to 6: The appellant during the appellate proceedings stated that the Assessing Officer erred in recomputing income at 88,06,034/ gross receipts. Assessing Officer erred in not adjusting various direct and indirect expenses, thereby duplicating income. The appellant is a small contractor and had declared turnover of 65,81,057/ income of 10,55,750/ receipts reflected in Form 26AS of 1,03,84,631/ 77,50,284/- was already accounted in F.Y. 2013 payer company booked it in F.Y. 2014 year, leading to mismatch. Further, the appellant stat Assessing Officer wrongly added the entire 77,50,284/ of F.Y. 2014 declared in earlier year. If such addition is made, then expenses of 71,25,611/- pertaining to these receipts must there is duplication of income. In reality, the difference in gross receipts was only 39,46,410/ Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) Reliance Brands Ltd. responded by denying having any transaction in financial year 2013-14 and no response was received from Brooks Brother India Pvt. Ltd. The AO, noting a denial of transactions in F.Y. 2013-14 by M/s Reliance Brands Ltd. and a lack of response from M/s Brooks Brothers, treated the e as undisclosed income for the impugned year. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that the Assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving that the receipts were offered to tax in the earlier year. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the absence of third confirmations or audited reconciliations, the credit appearing in Form 26AS for the current year must be deemed as the \"real income\" of the year in which the tax was deducted. finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 to 6: The appellant during the appellate proceedings stated that the Assessing Officer erred in recomputing income at 88,06,034/- by adding entire difference in receipts. Assessing Officer erred in not adjusting various direct and indirect expenses, thereby duplicating income. The appellant is a small contractor and had declared turnover of 65,81,057/ income of 10,55,750/-. Further, as per appellant, out receipts reflected in Form 26AS of 1,03,84,631/ was already accounted in F.Y. 2013-14. However, the payer company booked it in F.Y. 2014-15 and deducted TDS in that year, leading to mismatch. Further, the appellant stat Assessing Officer wrongly added the entire 77,50,284/ of F.Y. 2014-15 without considering the fact that it was already declared in earlier year. If such addition is made, then expenses of pertaining to these receipts must also be allowed, else there is duplication of income. In reality, the difference in gross receipts was only 39,46,410/-, but the Assessing Officer added the Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 3 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 ng any transaction 14 and no response was received from Brooks Brother India Pvt. Ltd. The AO, noting a denial of 14 by M/s Reliance Brands Ltd. and a lack of response from M/s Brooks Brothers, treated the entire sum as undisclosed income for the impugned year. affirmed the addition, holding that the Assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of earlier year. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the absence of third-party confirmations or audited reconciliations, the credit appearing in Form 26AS for the current year must be deemed as the \"real income\" of the year in which the tax was deducted. The relevant 5.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 to 6: The appellant during the appellate proceedings stated that the Assessing Officer erred in by adding entire difference in receipts. Assessing Officer erred in not adjusting various direct and indirect expenses, thereby duplicating income. The appellant is a small contractor and had declared turnover of 65,81,057/- with net . Further, as per appellant, out of the gross receipts reflected in Form 26AS of 1,03,84,631/-, a sum of 14. However, the 15 and deducted TDS in that year, leading to mismatch. Further, the appellant stated that Assessing Officer wrongly added the entire 77,50,284/- to the income 15 without considering the fact that it was already declared in earlier year. If such addition is made, then expenses of also be allowed, else there is duplication of income. In reality, the difference in gross , but the Assessing Officer added the Printed from counselvise.com entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high assessment, contrary to pri Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the appellant and found that receipts were substantially higher than those disclosed. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to both parties (Reliance Brands Ltd. and Brooks categorically denied any transaction with the appellant in F.Y. 2013 14, contradicting the appellant's claim. As per Assessing Officer, the assessee could not obtain confirmations from the parties or produce independent evidence to substantiate the claim that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013-14. Since TDS was deducted and credited in F.Y. 2014 15, receipts were rightfully taxable in this year. The onus of proving that receipts belong to an earlier year lies squ which he failed to discharge. Hence, Assessing Officer treated 77,50,284/-as receipts of the current year and computed total income accordingly at 88.06.034/ The appellant has argued that receipts of 77,50,284/ Vaccounted in F.Y. 2013 been produced to demonstrate that such receipts were indeed declared as income in the earlier year. Mere entries in self are insufficient unless backed by third accounts, or reconciliation accepted by the concerned deductors. On the contrary, Reliance Brands Ltd., a major payer, has specifically denied any transaction in F.Y. 2013 appellant's case considerably. Therefore, th of treating the receipts as pertaining to F.Y. 2014 The appellant's plea that proportionate expenses of 71,25,611/ should also be allowed is not sustainable. These expenses have already been claimed in ea year. Allowing them again would amount to double deduction. Since appellant failed to establish that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013 the question of adjusting earlier year's expenses in current year does not arise. The allegation of over additions is also not tenable. The Assessing Officer has simply brought to tax receipts reflected in 26AS which were not shown in books for this year. No income has been taxed twice. In fact, the year recognition is unsupported by evidence and stands contradicted by payer's confirmation. Therefore, the addition cannot be termed as duplication. The appellant has sought relief on the ground that only \"real income\" can be taxed. It is TDS deduction and credited in assessee's account during the year are real and taxable income of that year, unless assessee demonstrates with documentary proof that such receipts have already been offered in earlier year. Since appellant has failed to discharge this onus, Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high assessment, contrary to principles of natural justice. Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the appellant and found that receipts were substantially higher than those disclosed. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to both parties (Reliance Brands Ltd. and Brooks Brothers India Pvt. Ltd.). Reliance Brands Ltd. categorically denied any transaction with the appellant in F.Y. 2013 14, contradicting the appellant's claim. As per Assessing Officer, the assessee could not obtain confirmations from the parties or produce independent evidence to substantiate the claim that receipts pertained 14. Since TDS was deducted and credited in F.Y. 2014 15, receipts were rightfully taxable in this year. The onus of proving that receipts belong to an earlier year lies squarely on the assessee, which he failed to discharge. Hence, Assessing Officer treated as receipts of the current year and computed total income accordingly at 88.06.034/-. The appellant has argued that receipts of 77,50,284/ nted in F.Y. 2013-14. However, no corroborative evidence has been produced to demonstrate that such receipts were indeed declared as income in the earlier year. Mere entries in self-maintained books are insufficient unless backed by third-party confirmatio accounts, or reconciliation accepted by the concerned deductors. On the contrary, Reliance Brands Ltd., a major payer, has specifically denied any transaction in F.Y. 2013-14. This denial weakens the appellant's case considerably. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's action of treating the receipts as pertaining to F.Y. 2014-15 is correct in law. The appellant's plea that proportionate expenses of 71,25,611/ should also be allowed is not sustainable. These expenses have already been claimed in earlier year against turnover shown for that year. Allowing them again would amount to double deduction. Since appellant failed to establish that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013 the question of adjusting earlier year's expenses in current year does rise. The allegation of over-assessment and multiplicity of additions is also not tenable. The Assessing Officer has simply brought to tax receipts reflected in 26AS which were not shown in books for this year. No income has been taxed twice. In fact, the year recognition is unsupported by evidence and stands contradicted by payer's confirmation. Therefore, the addition cannot be termed as duplication. The appellant has sought relief on the ground that only \"real income\" can be taxed. It is settled law that receipts evidenced by TDS deduction and credited in assessee's account during the year are real and taxable income of that year, unless assessee demonstrates with documentary proof that such receipts have already been offered ear. Since appellant has failed to discharge this onus, Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 4 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high-pitched Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the appellant and found that receipts were substantially higher than those disclosed. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to both parties (Reliance Brothers India Pvt. Ltd.). Reliance Brands Ltd. categorically denied any transaction with the appellant in F.Y. 2013- 14, contradicting the appellant's claim. As per Assessing Officer, the assessee could not obtain confirmations from the parties or produce independent evidence to substantiate the claim that receipts pertained 14. Since TDS was deducted and credited in F.Y. 2014- 15, receipts were rightfully taxable in this year. The onus of proving arely on the assessee, which he failed to discharge. Hence, Assessing Officer treated as receipts of the current year and computed total income The appellant has argued that receipts of 77,50,284/- were already 14. However, no corroborative evidence has been produced to demonstrate that such receipts were indeed declared maintained books party confirmations, audited accounts, or reconciliation accepted by the concerned deductors. On the contrary, Reliance Brands Ltd., a major payer, has specifically 14. This denial weakens the e Assessing Officer's action 15 is correct in law. The appellant's plea that proportionate expenses of 71,25,611/- should also be allowed is not sustainable. These expenses have rlier year against turnover shown for that year. Allowing them again would amount to double deduction. Since appellant failed to establish that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013-14, the question of adjusting earlier year's expenses in current year does assessment and multiplicity of additions is also not tenable. The Assessing Officer has simply brought to tax receipts reflected in 26AS which were not shown in books for this year. No income has been taxed twice. In fact, the claim of earlier year recognition is unsupported by evidence and stands contradicted by payer's confirmation. Therefore, the addition cannot be termed as duplication. The appellant has sought relief on the ground that only settled law that receipts evidenced by TDS deduction and credited in assessee's account during the year are real and taxable income of that year, unless assessee demonstrates with documentary proof that such receipts have already been offered ear. Since appellant has failed to discharge this onus, Printed from counselvise.com Assessing Officer's action stands justified. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer has correctly added 77,50,284/ income of the assessee. The appellant's contentions of dupli allowance of earlier year expenses, and high devoid of merit. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are dismissed.” 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently argued that the assessment was concluded in haste a request for an adjournment until 26.12.2017 to submit a detailed reconciliation. It was submitted no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the receipt which were appearing in the Form in the assessment year under consideration with the income already offered in assessment year 2014 preceding assessment year. The assessee filed detailed reconciliation statement along with profit and l assessment year 2014 2014-15, which clearly demonstrate that the impugned receipts were subjected to tax in that year but the Ld. CIT(A) without considering dismissed the prayer of the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below, emphasizing the categorical denial by the deductor. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The core controversy mismatch\" between the recognition of income by the Assessee (on Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) Assessing Officer's action stands justified. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer has correctly added 77,50,284/ income of the assessee. The appellant's contentions of dupli allowance of earlier year expenses, and high-pitched assessment are devoid of merit. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently argued that the assessment was concluded in haste on 19.12.2017, despite a request for an adjournment until 26.12.2017 to submit a detailed reconciliation. It was submitted no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the receipt which were appearing in the Form No. 26AS and not offered for tax in the assessment year under consideration with the income already offered in assessment year 2014-15 i.e. immediately preceding assessment year. The assessee filed detailed reconciliation statement along with profit and loss account for assessment year 2014-15 and return of income for assessment year 15, which clearly demonstrate that the impugned receipts were subjected to tax in that year but the Ld. CIT(A) without considering dismissed the prayer of the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below, emphasizing the categorical denial by the We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The core controversy revolves around a \"timing mismatch\" between the recognition of income by the Assessee (on Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 5 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 Assessing Officer's action stands justified. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer has correctly added 77,50,284/- to the income of the assessee. The appellant's contentions of duplication, pitched assessment are devoid of merit. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently argued on 19.12.2017, despite a request for an adjournment until 26.12.2017 to submit a detailed reconciliation. It was submitted no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the receipt No. 26AS and not offered for tax in the assessment year under consideration with the income 15 i.e. immediately preceding assessment year. The assessee filed detailed oss account for 15 and return of income for assessment year 15, which clearly demonstrate that the impugned receipts were subjected to tax in that year but the Ld. CIT(A) without considering dismissed the prayer of the assessee. Conversely, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below, emphasizing the categorical denial by the We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material revolves around a \"timing mismatch\" between the recognition of income by the Assessee (on Printed from counselvise.com accrual basis) and the deduction of tax by the payees. fundamental principle of taxation that the same income cannot be taxed twice. If the Assessee has A.Y. 2014-15, bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015 merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. dispute is reconciliatio shown by the assessee in assessment year 2014 detail of the Form 26AS comprising of receipt from two parties. It is the contention of the assessee that the receipt which the Assessing Officer has added in the assessment year 2015 assessment year have already offered in the immediately preceding assessment year 2014 8. The claim of the Assessee requires rigorous factual verification. The reconciliation between the bills raised corresponding entries in the current year's Form 26AS is a matter of record. We find that the Assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to present this reconciliation before the AO, and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to examine the preceding year) in the right perspective. 9. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of equity, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Asses Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) accrual basis) and the deduction of tax by the payees. fundamental principle of taxation that the same income cannot be taxed twice. If the Assessee has already offered the receipts to tax in 15, bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015 merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. dispute is reconciliation of the receipt in respect of two parties shown by the assessee in assessment year 2014 detail of the Form 26AS comprising of receipt from two parties. It is the contention of the assessee that the receipt which the Assessing ed in the assessment year 2015-16 i.e. the current assessment year have already offered in the immediately preceding assessment year 2014-15. he claim of the Assessee requires rigorous factual verification. The reconciliation between the bills raised in F.Y. 2013 corresponding entries in the current year's Form 26AS is a matter We find that the Assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to present this reconciliation before the AO, and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to examine the fresh evidence (P&L account of the preceding year) in the right perspective. in the interest of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of equity, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 6 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 accrual basis) and the deduction of tax by the payees. It is a fundamental principle of taxation that the same income cannot be already offered the receipts to tax in 15, bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015-16 merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The issue in n of the receipt in respect of two parties shown by the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 along with detail of the Form 26AS comprising of receipt from two parties. It is the contention of the assessee that the receipt which the Assessing 16 i.e. the current assessment year have already offered in the immediately preceding he claim of the Assessee requires rigorous factual verification. in F.Y. 2013-14 and the corresponding entries in the current year's Form 26AS is a matter We find that the Assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to present this reconciliation before the AO, and the Ld. fresh evidence (P&L account of the in the interest of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of equity, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order Officer. The AO is Printed from counselvise.com directed to (i) Conduct a de novo verification of the reconciliation statement provided by the Assessee, (ii) A.Y. 2014-15 and verify if the corresponding income was indeed offered to tax in that opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third evidence or certificates from the deductors issue in accordance with law the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 10. Consequently, Grounds No purposes. Since the primary issue is remanded for verification, the remaining grounds are rendered academic and do not require separate adjudication. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/02/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) Conduct a de novo verification of the reconciliation tement provided by the Assessee, (ii) Examine the bills issued in 15 and verify if the corresponding income was indeed offered to tax in that year, and (iii) Allow the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third evidence or certificates from the deductors and then decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. Consequently, Grounds No. 1 and 2 are allowed for statistical purposes. Since the primary issue is remanded for verification, the remaining grounds are rendered academic and do not require separate adjudication. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ounced in the open Court on 27/02/2026. Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 7 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 Conduct a de novo verification of the reconciliation Examine the bills issued in 15 and verify if the corresponding income was indeed Allow the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third-party and then decide the Accordingly the ground No. 1 and 2 of . 1 and 2 are allowed for statistical purposes. Since the primary issue is remanded for verification, the remaining grounds are rendered academic and do not require In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) 8 ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "