MOHAMMAD ZUBER IBRHIM PATEL,TALOJA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 468/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Mohammad Zuber Ibrahim Patel against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Pune, concerning the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The appeals were consolidated due to their connected nature. The primary issues revolved around unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts and the source of investment in immovable property. The Income Tax Department had reopened the assessments based on these issues, leading to additions to the assessee's income. The assessee contested these additions, providing explanations and documentary evidence, which were initially rejected. The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32073 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), New Delhi (2007) reported in 108 ITD 186, CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia [1983] 143 ITR 486, Mahavir Singh case, Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy AIR 1979 SC 553, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Panchan AIR 1965 SC 1008, Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh AIR 1951 SC 193, Natha Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation AIR 1976 SC 1053
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 148; 113

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Mohammad Zuber Ibrhim Patel, 92A, Taloja, Panvel, Raigad-410208. Vs. CIT (A), Pune 11, Pune-411001. PAN NO. AKAOO 6361 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prateek Jain Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – Pune [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] in relation to assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 respectively. 2. Both the appeals being connected with the same assessee, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 1. During the f y 2014 2000000/- in cash in my saving bank account in union bank of India .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned below: Rs 1700000/ 300000/-. 2 During the year I had purchased a land from Mr Sanjay More and the payment is done through bank and nothing had been paid in cash. Copy of purchase agreement and ledger of Plot payment done to Mr Sanjay More is attached for your reference 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of construction. income was filed by the assessee. reopened by way of notice u/s 147 of the Income short ‘the Act’) pursuant to the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income assessment was reopened on the basis of information related to cash deposit in the bank account and source of investment in immovable property. income on 30.09.2020 declaring total income at Rs.11,22,290/ During the course of assessment, the assessee filed certain explanation and documentary evidence, however same were rejected and additions were made. On further appeal also the assessee made Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 468/Mum/2024 for assessment year 16 are reproduced as under: During the f y 2014-2015 I have deposited around in cash in my saving bank account in union bank of India .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned below:- ? Advances from various customers Rs 1700000/- Out of the cash withdrawals from bank 2 During the year I had purchased a land from Mr Sanjay More and the payment is done through bank and nothing had been paid in cash. Copy of purchase agreement and ledger of Plot payment done to Mr Sanjay More is attached your reference. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of construction. No regular return of income was filed by the assessee. The case of the assessee by way of notice u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pursuant to a survey action and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income assessment was reopened on the basis of information related to cash deposit in the bank account and source of investment in immovable property. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2020 declaring total income at Rs.11,22,290/ During the course of assessment, the assessee filed certain on and documentary evidence, however same were rejected were made. On further appeal also the assessee made Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel 2 ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised for assessment year 2015 I have deposited around in cash in my saving bank account in union bank of India .The break up of this source of cash deposited ? Advances from various customers - wals from bank – Rs 2 During the year I had purchased a land from Mr Sanjay More and the payment is done through bank and nothing had been paid in cash. Copy of purchase agreement and ledger of Plot payment done to Mr Sanjay More is attached Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was No regular return of The case of the assessee was tax Act, 1961 (in and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information related to cash deposit in the bank account and source of investment in In response, the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2020 declaring total income at Rs.11,22,290/-.. During the course of assessment, the assessee filed certain on and documentary evidence, however same were rejected were made. On further appeal also the assessee made part compliance and therefore, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Boo containing pages 1 to 113 along with an application for filing additional evidences Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier Chartered Accountant had left the office due t certain dispute and therefore, the records remained in his personal laptop and could not be submitted at the time of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Now, the assessee has obtained all those relevant documents and details an wishes to admit the same as additional evidence. He referred to the relevant additional evidence filed in Paper Book. 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional evidence. The additional evidence referred by the assessee relate to the issue in dispute of the cash deposits and investment in the immovable property, which go root of the issue in dispute. We find that the Co the Tribunal in the case of Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), New Delhi (2007) reported in 108 ITD 186 additional evidence if assessee satisfies for any substantial cause in not producing before lower authorities. The relevant find Tribunal is reproduced as under: Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 part compliance and therefore, appeal of the assessee was Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Boo containing pages 1 to 113 along with an application for filing s under Rule 29 of the Income Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier Chartered Accountant had left the office due t certain dispute and therefore, the records maintained by him personal laptop and could not be submitted at the time of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Now, the assessee has obtained all those relevant documents and details an wishes to admit the same as additional evidence. He referred to the relevant additional evidence filed in Paper Book. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional evidence. The additional evidence erred by the assessee relate to the issue in dispute of the cash ment in the immovable property, which go root of the issue in dispute. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), New Delhi (2007) reported in 108 ITD 186 held that the Tribunal can allow the additional evidence if assessee satisfies for any substantial cause in not producing before lower authorities. The relevant find Tribunal is reproduced as under: Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel 3 ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 part compliance and therefore, appeal of the assessee was Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 113 along with an application for filing under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier Chartered Accountant had left the office due to maintained by him personal laptop and could not be submitted at the time of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Now, the assessee has obtained all those relevant documents and details and wishes to admit the same as additional evidence. He referred to the We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional evidence. The additional evidence erred by the assessee relate to the issue in dispute of the cash ment in the immovable property, which go to the ordinate Bench of UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), New Delhi (2007) held that the Tribunal can allow the additional evidence if assessee satisfies for any substantial cause in not producing before lower authorities. The relevant finding of the “30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public and allowing of production of additional evidence is in the discretion of discretion however, is to be exercised judicially and not arbitarily. As held by Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia [1983] the discretion of th of additional evidence if the said authority requires any document to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause. The Tribunal is the final fact body under the scheme of the Income therefore, have necessarily to be exercised by it for deciding the questions of fact. While exercising its powers, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that additional evidence is material in the interest of justice for deciding a particular issue, its discretion cannot be interfered with unless it has been exercised on non case of Mahavir Singh (supra ) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was held that section 107 of CPC enables an appellate cour require such other evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as are prescribed under Order 41 of Rule 27 of CPC. It was also held that the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of the matter is entirely in the discretion of the court which is of course to be exercised judicially and sparingly. It was observed that Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC envisages certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced and one of such circumstances is where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It was also clarified that the expression \"to enable it to prono contemplates a situation when the appellate court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna or defect in the evidence as it stands. In this context, it was further clarified that the ability to pronounce a judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce a judgment satisfactory to the mind of court delivering it. This position was reiterated again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy AIR 1979 SC 553 cited by the learned counsel case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Panchan AIR 1965 SC 1008 cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power to admit additional evidence does not Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public and allowing of production of additional evidence is in the discretion of the Tribunal. The said discretion however, is to be exercised judicially and not arbitarily. As held by Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia [1983] 143 ITR 486 1, it is within the discretion of the appellate authority to allow production of additional evidence if the said authority requires any document to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding body under the scheme of the Income-tax Act and powers, therefore, have necessarily to be exercised by it for deciding the questions of fact. While exercising its powers, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that additional evidence is material in the interest of justice for deciding a particular , its discretion cannot be interfered with unless it has been exercised on non-existing or imaginary grounds. In the case of Mahavir Singh (supra ) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was held that section 107 of CPC enables an appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such other evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as are prescribed under Order 41 of Rule 27 of CPC. It was also held that the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence and the matter is entirely in the discretion of the court which is of course to be exercised judicially and sparingly. It was observed that Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC envisages certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced ne of such circumstances is where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It was also clarified that the expression \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" contemplates a situation when the appellate court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna or defect in the evidence as it stands. In this context, it was further clarified that the ability to pronounce a judgment is understood as the ability to pronounce a judgment satisfactory to the mind of court delivering it. This position was reiterated again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy AIR 1979 SC 553 cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Panchan AIR 1965 SC 1008 cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power to admit additional evidence does not Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel 4 ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 30. It is a settled position that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right to litigating public and allowing of production of additional the Tribunal. The said discretion however, is to be exercised judicially and not arbitarily. As held by Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of 1, it is within e appellate authority to allow production of additional evidence if the said authority requires any document to enable it to pass orders or for any other finding and powers, therefore, have necessarily to be exercised by it for deciding the questions of fact. While exercising its powers, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that additional evidence is material in the interest of justice for deciding a particular , its discretion cannot be interfered with unless it has existing or imaginary grounds. In the case of Mahavir Singh (supra ) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was held that section 107 of CPC t to take additional evidence or to require such other evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as are prescribed under Order 41 of Rule 27 of CPC. It was also held that the parties are not such evidence and the matter is entirely in the discretion of the court which is of course to be exercised judicially and sparingly. It was observed that Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC envisages certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced ne of such circumstances is where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It was also clarified that the unce judgment\" contemplates a situation when the appellate court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna or defect in the evidence as it stands. In this context, it was further clarified that the ability to pronounce a judgment is understood as the ability to pronounce a judgment satisfactory to the mind of court delivering it. This position was reiterated again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy AIR 1979 SC for the assessee. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Panchan AIR 1965 SC 1008 cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power to admit additional evidence does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way and it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. In the case of Arjan S it was held that the discretion given to the appellate court by Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified was also held that the legitimate occasion for the application of the said Rule is when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent. To the similar effect is another decision of Hon’ble Supreme C Financial Commissioner, Taxation AIR 1976 SC 1053. 5.1 In view of the above, the additional evidence assessee are accepted and accordingly matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication after verification of the additional evidence in accordance with law. 6. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingl for statistical purposes. 7. The grounds raised in ITA No. 469/Mum/2024 as under: 1. As I have deposited Rs. 2544000/ bank account .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned below: Rs 2235000/ cash withdrawals from bank deposited RS 244500W .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned below:- ? advances from various customers (copy of which is attached here) ? out of the cash withdrawals from 2. FURTHER ORDER [T IS STATE THAT 1 HAD Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 le the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way and it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. In the case of Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh AIR 1951 SC 193, it was held that the discretion given to the appellate court by Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in that Rule. It was also held that the legitimate occasion for the application of the said Rule is when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent. To the similar effect is another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Natha Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation AIR 1976 SC 1053.” In view of the above, the additional evidence assessee are accepted and accordingly matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication after verification of the additional evidence in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingl for statistical purposes. s raised in ITA No. 469/Mum/2024 1. As I have deposited Rs. 2544000/- in cash in my bank account .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned below:- ? advances from various customers Rs 2235000/- (copy of which is attached here) ? out of the cash withdrawals from bank - Rs 309000/-.As I have deposited RS 244500W- in cash in my Union bank account .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned ? advances from various customers - Rs 2039500' (copy of which is attached here) ? out of the cash withdrawals from bank-Rs405500A I HERE BY INFORM YOU THAT IN APPEAL ORDER [T IS STATE THAT 1 HAD NOT PAID SELF Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel 5 ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 le the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way and it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. ingh v. Kartar Singh AIR 1951 SC 193, it was held that the discretion given to the appellate court by Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one but is a judicial one in that Rule. It was also held that the legitimate occasion for the application of the said Rule is when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent. To the similar effect is another decision ourt in the case of Natha Singh v. ” In view of the above, the additional evidences filed by the assessee are accepted and accordingly matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication after verification of The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed s raised in ITA No. 469/Mum/2024 are reproduced in cash in my Idbi bank account .The break up of this source of cash deposited from various customers - which is attached here) ? out of the .As I have account .The break up of this source of cash deposited is mentioned Rs 2039500'- (copy of which is attached here) ? out of the cash I HERE BY INFORM YOU THAT IN APPEAL NOT PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX AMOUNTING TO RS YEAR BUT I HERE INFORM YOU THAT 1 HAD PAID TAX WRONGLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019 INSTAED OF ASSESSMENT HAD SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AO FOR CHALLAN FROM ASSESSMENT Y 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for failure on the part of the assessee in depositing the self part of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “34. The appeal has been fixed on severalo however, the appellant notice of the undersigned, However, when regarding non matching the appellant's Form 35 with the income iax return and details of tax accounting system) and show cause notice Act was issued, the appellant has not responded. Since, the requirement of section 249(4} (a) of paying the tax due on the income returned not complied with by the appellant, the the appellant is not admitted as per section 249(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal for AY 2017 in-iimine.” 8. Before us, the Ld. counsel assessee has already paid self wrong assessment year was m for which the assessee has already filed an application for rectification before the AO, which is pendi Therefore, he requested that of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. 8.1 We have heard rival submission on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 ASSESSMENT TAX AMOUNTING TO RS 500000/- IN THIS YEAR BUT I HERE INFORM YOU THAT 1 HAD PAID TAX WRONGLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019 INSTAED OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 AND ALSO I SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AO FOR SHIFTING THIS CHALLAN FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-2020 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for failure on the part of the assessee in depositing the self-assessment tax. The relevant part of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 34. The appeal has been fixed on severaloccasions; however, the appellant did not bring the correct facts to the notice of the undersigned, However, when the (act regarding non-payment of due taxes was discovered after the appellant's Form 35 with the income iax return and details of tax payments available in OLTAS (On-line tax accounting system) and show cause notice u/s 249(4) of Act was issued, the appellant has not responded. Since, requirement of section 249(4} (a) of paying the tax due on the income returned at the time of filing of the appeal is not complied with by the appellant, the appeal presented by the appellant is not admitted as per section 249(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal for AY 2017-18 is DISMISSED Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee has already paid self-assessment tax but inadvertently a wrong assessment year was mentioned in the challan number and the assessee has already filed an application for before the AO, which is pending for disposal. he requested that matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. We have heard rival submission on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In view of self Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel 6 ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 IN THIS YEAR BUT I HERE INFORM YOU THAT 1 HAD PAID THIS TAX WRONGLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-2020 2018 AND ALSO I SHIFTING THIS 2020 TO The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for failure on the part assessment tax. The relevant part of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: ccasions; did not bring the correct facts to the the (act payment of due taxes was discovered after the appellant's Form 35 with the income iax return line tax u/s 249(4) of the Act was issued, the appellant has not responded. Since, requirement of section 249(4} (a) of paying the tax due filing of the appeal is appeal presented by the appellant is not admitted as per section 249(4) of the U. 18 is DISMISSED essee has submitted that assessment tax but inadvertently a entioned in the challan number and the assessee has already filed an application for ng for disposal. matter may be restored back to the file We have heard rival submission on the issue in dispute and view of self-assessment tax already paid by the assessee subject to rectification of the assessment year, which is pending before the Income We feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for verification of the payment o the assessee and thereafter, decide the issue on merit in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allo statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26/03/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 tax already paid by the assessee subject to rectification of the which is pending before the Income We feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for verification of the payment of the self-assessment tax by the assessee and thereafter, decide the issue on merit in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allo nounced in the open Court on 26/03/2025. - Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mohammad Suber Ibrahim Patel 7 ITA Nos. 468 & 469/MUM/2024 tax already paid by the assessee subject to rectification of the which is pending before the Income-tax Authority. We feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessment tax by the assessee and thereafter, decide the issue on merit in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal by the assessee are accordingly In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for /03/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "