MAHENDRA JETHALAL MAMTORA,MUMBAI V. ITO, MUMBAI

ITA 3114/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2010-11. The primary issues in the appeal include the legality of the re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and various additions made to the assessee's income, including unexplained commodity transactions, credit card expenses, and contract receipts. The Assessing Officer had initially reopened the assessment due to non-filing of the return by the assessee and made several additions based on the financial transactions observed. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the merits of the case as the assessee had not attached any evidence with the submissions, and thus remitted the case back for a thorough examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790536 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; TDS; Transactions in derivatives; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c); 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 3114/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora, B-26, Vishwa Shanti CHS, Kedarmal Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400097. PAN: AIKPM2101N Vs. ITO, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Assessee) : Revenue) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 11.04.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11. The assessee raised the following grounds: “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Authorities below have erred in re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I T Act as there was no reason to believe with the AO that any income had escaped assessment as provided Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3114/Mum/2025 Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora under the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act except merely relying on the report and hence the re-opening of the assessment was bad in law and against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in making an addition of Rs. 39,78,000/- arbitrarily without any basis on commodity transactions and debit and credit summations in the bank account of about Rs. 3,62,29,500/- and the reasons assigned for doing so were wholly wrong, irrelevant and contrary to the facts of the case, and therefore this is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and rules made thereunder. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,58,816/- being the credit card expenses done for the business purposes and the reasons assigned for doing so were wholly wrong, irrelevant and contrary to the facts of the case, and therefore this is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and rules made thereunder. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in making an addition of Rs. 14,52,300/- of the contract receipts arbitrarily estimating without any basis and the reasons assigned for doing so were wholly wrong, irrelevant and contrary to the facts of the case, and therefore this is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and rules made thereunder. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Authorities below have erred in levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I T which was wholly wrong, and against the provisions of Income Tax At, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Authorities below have erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which were wholly wrong, irrelevant, and not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case as no income is concealed nor any inaccurate particulars were furnished.” 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from the details available with the department that during the Financial Year (FY) relevant to AY 2010-11 the assessee has received contract receipts, invested more than Rs. 10,00,000/- in commodities and made payment against Credit Card Bills. Since the assessee did Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3114/Mum/2025 Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora not file the return of income, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 reopening the assessment. The assessee did not file any response to the notice u/s. 148 and also subsequent notices issued calling the assessee to furnish details. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 making additions towards Credit Card payments, commodity exchange transaction and amount received on which TDS deducted totalling to Rs. 4,13,29,317/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee filed written submissions contending the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) considered the submissions made by the assessee to hold that the assessee has only file the written submissions without attaching any evidences in support of the contentions made against the additions. The CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. None appeared for the assessee and we heard the ld. DR. The ld. DR argued that the assessee has not been cooperating with the assessment proceedings as well as the proceedings before the CIT(A). The ld. DR further argued that the financial transactions entered into by the assessee remain unexplained due to the fact that the assessee neither filed the return of income nor responded to the notices issued by the lower authorities. Accordingly, the ld. DR argued that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld. From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we notice that the assessee has made a written submission before the CIT(A) as has been extracted in the appellate order. We further notice that the CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has uploaded various submissions and the evidences at the appellate stage but has proceeded to hold that the assessee has not attached any evidences with the written submissions. Considering the fact the CIT(A) has sustained the impugned additions without examining the merits on the ground that the assessee failed to Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3114/Mum/2025 Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora submit any evidence we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a denovo consideration by calling for the required details in order to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for by the CIT(A) and co- operate with the appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly. 4. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-12-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (PADMAVATHY S) Vice-President Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "