MUKESH K. MULCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 707/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Kevalram Mulchandani, a civil contractor, who appealed against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The dispute arose from the assessment order under sections 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary issues were the addition of Rs. 80 lakhs as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 24,03,750 as unexplained credit as per Form 26-AS. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions, leading to the current appeal. The assessee argued that these amounts were subject to double taxation, as they were recognized in subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, decided to set aside the lower authorities' orders and remand the matter for fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472245 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIGNESH DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; TDS; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ɋायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.707/Ahd/2023 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Mukesh Kevalram Mulchandani A-137,Sarboday Nagar Soc. (No.2) Sola Road,Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 001 बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(3) Ahmedabad–380 015 ̾थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEWPM 4974 R (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) .. (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎ ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Parin Shah, AR ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 25 /02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 14/08/2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 on 18/10/2014 ITA No.707/Ahd/2023 Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 - 2 - declaring total income of Rs.8,64,710/-. The assessee is a Civil Contractor and doing business in the name of proprietary- concern, M/s.M.K. Builders. Regular assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 24/11/2016 assessing total income at Rs.8,69,220/-. The assessment was revised u/s.263 of the Act to make addition of Rs.80 lakhs on account of unexplained credit in the books of the assessee as ‘advance’ received. Another addition of Rs.24,03,750/- was made by the AO on account of unexplained credit as per Form 26-AS. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.80 lakhs as the assessee failed to explain with necessary details on the second issue. On the second issue of addition of Rs.24,03,750/-, the assessee claimed the entire TDS but not recognized the corresponding revenue during the year under consideration, hence confirmed the addition. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal. “1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO treating mobilization advance of Rs.80,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit ignoring submission of the appellant. 3. Ld.NFAC ought to have considered fact that contractual income of party from whom mobilization advance received have been booked subsequently and accordingly it results into double taxation of same income. ITA No.707/Ahd/2023 Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 - 3 - 4. Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO of treating difference of contract receipt of Rs.24,03,750/- as unexplained credit ignoring fact that appellant booked same in A.Y. 2015-16 and it results into double taxation of same income. 5. Ld.NFAC ought to have gave direction to avoid double taxation of same income. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is unjustified. 7. Charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D are unjustified.” 5. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us copy of the ledger account, wherein repayment made by the assessee along with HDFC Bank statement. Thus, claimed that the money was repaid by the assessee. Similarly, the assessee submitted for the subsequent AY 2015-16, the assessee offered the income receipt of Rs.24,03,750/-. Therefore, Ld.Counsel pleaded that taxing same amount again tantamounts to double taxation. Thus, the Ld.Counsel requested the matter may be set aside back to the file of JAO for passing fresh order taking note of above submissions. 6. The Sr.DR appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in setting aside the matter. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences produced before us, we set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities with a direction to the JAO to ITA No.707/Ahd/2023 Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 - 4 - consider the submission of the assessee and pass order in accordance with law by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ( DR. BRR KUMAR ) (T.R. SENTHILUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/02/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "