HARISH KESHAVLAL PANCHAL ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3305/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Harish Keshavlal Panchal, the Assessee, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Center/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had affirmed the additions made by the AO regarding unexplained investments and discrepancies in share transactions for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee, represented by Ms. Dinkle Hariya, submitted additional documents during the appeal, citing non-compliance by his tax consultant as the reason for their initial non-submission. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions but suggested that if the documents were to be admitted, they should be examined by the lower authorities with a reasonable cost imposed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712206 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA; LD.
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3305/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Harish Keshavlal Panchal, 1602, D Wing, Lloyad Est, Wadala Height CHS Ltd., Vidyalankar College Road, Sangam Nagar, Wadala East, Mumbai – 400 037 PAN: AEPPG3684R Vs. ITO- Ward 20(1)(1), Room No.303, 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Adv. Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.04.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 20.12.2018 u/s 144 of the Act has made the additions of Rs.1,90,77,480/- & Rs.25,14,546/- on account of unexplained investment and difference between the purchase and sale value of shares, respectively. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3305/M/2025 Mr. Harish Keshavlal Panchal 2 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the additions made by the AO mainly on the reason that the Assessee failed to make any submission in support of his grounds of appeal in spite of affording opportunities. Therefore, the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal. 4. The Assessee before us has filed application u/r 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1963 (in short “the Rules”) along with various documents, such as acknowledgment of returns of income and computation of income for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016- 17, agreement for sale dated 05.02.2016, relevant bank statements of the Assessee, ledger account reflecting the payments of the flat and relevant bank statements. The Assessee has claimed that the Assessee is a 79 years old senior citizen and due to non-compliance by his tax consultant the said documents remained to be placed on record before the authorities below. Even otherwise the Assessee has prima-facie case in his favour and no prejudice shall be caused to the Assessee, if the additional evidences filed by the Assessee may be taken for balance of convenience, just and proper adjudication of the issue(s) involved in the instant appeal, so that substantial justice would be met. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee and vehemently supported the orders passed by the authorities below and alternatively submitted that even otherwise if the documents are to be admitted then the same require to be examined by the lower authorities and therefore the same may be referred to for examination by any of the lower authorities but subject to imposing certain reasonable cost. 6. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The reasons stated by the Assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3305/M/2025 Mr. Harish Keshavlal Panchal 3 for non-filing of such documents is not satisfying. However, we, prima-facie, observe that the documents filed by the Assessee are essential for proper and just decision of the case and therefore for the fair play, equitable and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the AO as both the authorities have also prayed for the same, for decision afresh by considering the documents stated above, however, subject to a token cost of Rs.1100/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the order. Suffice to say, the Assessee shall produce the relevant documents as produced before us to the file of the AO. We clarify that in case of subsequent default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "