S N THAKKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4588/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary issues in the appeal included the arbitrary estimation of net profit, rejection of books of account, and double taxation of income. The Assessing Officer had rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to incomplete compliance and estimated the profit at 8% of gross receipts. Additionally, an income of Rs. 41,18,214 from Vinayak Developers was added as it was not offered to tax in the year under consideration, although the assessee claimed it was included in the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and admitted additional evidence, leading to the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and a remand to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789783 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE A. Y.; KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SHETH; OTHER; OTHER; OTHER
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Additional evidence; Rejection of books of accounts; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 402, 4th floor, A Wing, Krushal Tower, M G Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043. Vs. Circle 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAOCS 5345 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Kirit Sheth Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/11/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds: Ground 4 - The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 41,18,214, being arbitrary estimation of net profit @ 20% on receipts of Rs. 2,05,91,068 from Vinayak Developers, disregarding the fact that the said are already included in the appellant's gross business Printed from counselvise.com revenue for immediately preceding year i.e. AY: 2017 the income corresponding to these r tax in AY: 2017 aforesaid arbitrary addition of Rs. 41,18,214 amounts to double taxation of same income and should therefore be deleted and in any case estimation itself can basis. Ground 1 - The Id. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing both the grounds raised before him by the appellant without waiting for the ld. AO's remand report. This has denied an opportunity to the appellant to explain its case to the ld. AO during the remand proceedings. Your appellant respectfully submits that the assessment order may please be set aside for Denovo assessment by the ld. AO especially because the appellant was handicapped in responding to the AO's notices during assessment proceedings due to massive spread of Covid - 19. Ground 2 - The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the rejection of Books of Accounts observing that 'the books of accounts produced by the appellant before the AO were not complete an appellant respectfully submits that the rejection of Books of Accounts is not justified since the books of accounts were not called for and examined either by the ld. AO OR the ld. the books of accounts are rejected for in considerations, without properly appreciating documents and explanation furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Ground 3 - The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining Net Profit rate @ 8% of the appellant's business revenue percentage estimated by the ld. AO is entirely baseless, arbitrary and in complete disregard of the assessed Net Profit rate i.e. 3.83% in the appellant's own case for immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY: 2017 appellant respectfully submits that the Net Profit rate can be estimated only on some legally sustainable basis like the assessed Net Profit rate in the appellant's own case for immediately preceding assessment year. Ground 5 - Alternatively, directions may please be given to the ld. AO to exclude / reduce business income for AY: 2017 extent of Rs. 41,18,214 in the event this addition is sustained in the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the engaged in the business of real estate development and S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 revenue for immediately preceding year i.e. AY: 2017 the income corresponding to these receipts are already offered for tax in AY: 2017 - 18. Your appellant respectfully submits that the aforesaid arbitrary addition of Rs. 41,18,214 amounts to double taxation of same income and should therefore be deleted and in any case estimation itself can be made only on some legally sustainable The Id. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing both the grounds raised before him by the appellant without waiting for the ld. AO's remand report. This has denied an opportunity to the appellant to in its case to the ld. AO during the remand proceedings. Your appellant respectfully submits that the assessment order may please be set aside for Denovo assessment by the ld. AO especially because the appellant was handicapped in responding to the AO's tices during assessment proceedings due to massive spread of The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the rejection of Books of Accounts observing that 'the books of accounts produced by the appellant before the AO were not complete and correct. Your appellant respectfully submits that the rejection of Books of Accounts is not justified since the books of accounts were not called for and examined either by the ld. AO OR the ld. CIT (A). Further, the books of accounts are rejected for invalid and irrelevant considerations, without properly appreciating documents and explanation furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining Net Profit rate @ 8% of the appellant's business revenue overlooking the fact that the percentage estimated by the ld. AO is entirely baseless, arbitrary and in complete disregard of the assessed Net Profit rate i.e. 3.83% in the appellant's own case for immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY: 2017 - 18. Without prejudice to the other grounds, your appellant respectfully submits that the Net Profit rate can be estimated only on some legally sustainable basis like the assessed Net Profit rate in the appellant's own case for immediately preceding year. Alternatively, directions may please be given to the ld. AO to exclude / reduce business income for AY: 2017 extent of Rs. 41,18,214 in the event this addition is sustained in appeal. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 revenue for immediately preceding year i.e. AY: 2017 - 18 and thus eceipts are already offered for 18. Your appellant respectfully submits that the aforesaid arbitrary addition of Rs. 41,18,214 amounts to double taxation of same income and should therefore be deleted and in any be made only on some legally sustainable The Id. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing both the grounds raised before him by the appellant without waiting for the ld. AO's remand report. This has denied an opportunity to the appellant to in its case to the ld. AO during the remand proceedings. Your appellant respectfully submits that the assessment order may please be set aside for Denovo assessment by the ld. AO especially because the appellant was handicapped in responding to the AO's tices during assessment proceedings due to massive spread of The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the rejection of Books of Accounts observing that 'the books of accounts produced d correct. Your appellant respectfully submits that the rejection of Books of Accounts is not justified since the books of accounts were not called CIT (A). Further, valid and irrelevant considerations, without properly appreciating documents and explanation furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining Net Profit rate @ overlooking the fact that the percentage estimated by the ld. AO is entirely baseless, arbitrary and in complete disregard of the assessed Net Profit rate i.e. 3.83% in the appellant's own case for immediately preceding assessment Without prejudice to the other grounds, your appellant respectfully submits that the Net Profit rate can be estimated only on some legally sustainable basis like the assessed Net Profit rate in the appellant's own case for immediately preceding Alternatively, directions may please be given to the ld. AO to exclude / reduce business income for AY: 2017 - 18 to the extent of Rs. 41,18,214 in the event this addition is sustained in the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and Printed from counselvise.com infrastructure construction. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2018, declaring a total income of ₹22,19,770/ 2.1 During the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) dated 20.11.2020 and 10.12.2020, calling upon the assessee to furnish complete particulars relating various expenditure heads wages, security charges, professional and consultancy fees, fees for technical services and design charges, work assessment expenses, guest-house expenditure, vehicle hire charges and labour The details sought included the names, PAN, postal addresses, contact numbers, and the nature and purpose of payments to the respective payees. 2.2 Although the assessee furnished ledger extracts in respect of some items of expenditure, the Subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) on 12.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 met with similar incomplete compliance. 2.3 Upon examining the partial information filed, the Assessing Officer recorded the following deficie a) The assessee produced only ledger accounts of the expenses, which contained merely the names of the payees, without requisite supporting particulars. S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 infrastructure construction. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2018, declaring a total 22,19,770/-. g the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) dated 20.11.2020 and 10.12.2020, calling upon the assessee to furnish complete particulars relating various expenditure heads—such as purchases, rent, salary and wages, security charges, professional and consultancy fees, fees for technical services and design charges, work assessment expenses, house expenditure, vehicle hire charges and labour The details sought included the names, PAN, postal addresses, contact numbers, and the nature and purpose of payments to the Although the assessee furnished ledger extracts in respect of some items of expenditure, the remaining details were not provided. Subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) on 12.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 met with similar incomplete compliance. Upon examining the partial information filed, the Assessing Officer recorded the following deficiencies: a) The assessee produced only ledger accounts of the expenses, which contained merely the names of the payees, without requisite supporting particulars. S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 infrastructure construction. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2018, declaring a total g the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) dated 20.11.2020 and 10.12.2020, calling upon the assessee to furnish complete particulars relating to such as purchases, rent, salary and wages, security charges, professional and consultancy fees, fees for technical services and design charges, work assessment expenses, house expenditure, vehicle hire charges and labour expenses. The details sought included the names, PAN, postal addresses, contact numbers, and the nature and purpose of payments to the Although the assessee furnished ledger extracts in respect of remaining details were not provided. Subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) on 12.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 met with similar incomplete compliance. Upon examining the partial information filed, the Assessing a) The assessee produced only ledger accounts of the expenses, which contained merely the names of the payees, without requisite Printed from counselvise.com b) No corroborative evidence of payments corresponding entries in the bank s furnished. c) The assessee failed to produce the postal address, e or telephone numbers of the payees. d) In respect of salary payments, PAN and address were furnished for only six employees out of a total of sixte Officer found inexplicable. e) For work-assessment expenses of disclosed that the entire amount had been paid in cash. 2.4 In view of the above shortcomings and the assessee’s repeated failure to substantiate expenditure, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of the Act. He thereafter estimated the profit at 8% of the gross receipts of income at ₹79,34,965/ the assessee, an addition of 2.5 Further, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed credit of tax deducted at source in respect of receipts from M/s Vinayak Developers, amounting to corresponding turnover had not been offered to tax in the year under consideration. The assessee explained that the said income had already been accounted for in the preceding assessment year S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 b) No corroborative evidence of payments—such as marking the corresponding entries in the bank statements and bank book c) The assessee failed to produce the postal address, e or telephone numbers of the payees. d) In respect of salary payments, PAN and address were furnished for only six employees out of a total of sixteen, which the Assessing Officer found inexplicable. assessment expenses of ₹6,66,595/-, the ledger disclosed that the entire amount had been paid in cash. In view of the above shortcomings and the assessee’s repeated failure to substantiate the genuineness and verifiability of the expenditure, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of the Act. He thereafter estimated the profit at 8% of the gross receipts of ₹9,91,87,059/-, determining the 9,34,965/-. After adjusting the net profit declared by the assessee, an addition of ₹75,35,658/- was made. , the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed credit of tax deducted at source in respect of receipts from opers, amounting to ₹2,05,91,058/ corresponding turnover had not been offered to tax in the year under consideration. The assessee explained that the said income had already been accounted for in the preceding assessment year S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 such as marking the tatements and bank book—was c) The assessee failed to produce the postal address, e-mail address, d) In respect of salary payments, PAN and address were furnished en, which the Assessing , the ledger disclosed that the entire amount had been paid in cash. In view of the above shortcomings and the assessee’s repeated the genuineness and verifiability of the expenditure, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of the Act. He thereafter estimated the profit , determining the . After adjusting the net profit declared by was made. , the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed credit of tax deducted at source in respect of receipts from 2,05,91,058/-, but the corresponding turnover had not been offered to tax in the year under consideration. The assessee explained that the said income had already been accounted for in the preceding assessment year Printed from counselvise.com 2017-18. The Assessi and proceeded to estimate profit at 20% on the said receipts, resulting in an addition of 3. On further appeal, the assessee furnished certain additional details before the learned CIT(A) in However, after considering the assessment order, the material placed on record and the submissions advanced, the learned CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the appellate findings on t as under: “6.1.8 I have carefully considered the assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions furnished during the appellate proceedings. It is found that the AO was fully justified for profit @ 8%. Before the AO the Appellant submitted only ledger of expenses and could not furnished all the bills which were asked to produce by the AO. During the appellant proceedings also appellant could not produce any new evidence, such support of various expenses claimedby the Appellant. He only submitted same ledger/ bills which appellant furnished before AO. so I am also of the view that the books of accounts produced by appellant before AO were not compl justified. In view of above, the ground of appeal no appellant is dismissed. 3.1 Similarly, the addition relating to receipts from Vinayak Developers was also upheld. The learned CIT( following reasoning: “6.2.2 Accordingly, vide show was show- caused by the AO as to why the assessment should not be completed treating Rs. 2,05,91,068/ as undisclosed. Appellant stated in its reply that the receipt included in the A.Y. 2017- Appellant furnished Invoice, ledger, and Profit & loss A/c. for A.Y. 2017 S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 18. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected this explanation and proceeded to estimate profit at 20% on the said receipts, resulting in an addition of ₹41,18,214/-. On further appeal, the assessee furnished certain additional details before the learned CIT(A) in support of the grounds raised. However, after considering the assessment order, the material placed on record and the submissions advanced, the learned CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the appellate findings on the issue of low net profit stands extracted 6.1.8 I have carefully considered the assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions furnished during the appellate proceedings. It is found that the AO was fully justified for estimating net profit @ 8%. Before the AO the Appellant submitted only ledger of expenses and could not furnished all the bills which were asked to produce by the AO. During the appellant proceedings also appellant could not produce any new evidence, such as complete bills/vouchers in support of various expenses claimedby the Appellant. He only submitted same ledger/ bills which appellant furnished before AO. so I am also of the view that the books of accounts produced by appellant before AO were not complete and correct. Therefore, estimation of net profit is justified. In view of above, the ground of appeal no-1 raised by the appellant is dismissed.” Similarly, the addition relating to receipts from Vinayak Developers was also upheld. The learned CIT(A) recorded the 6.2.2 Accordingly, vide show-cause notice dated 06/03/2021, Appellant caused by the AO as to why the assessment should not be completed treating Rs. 2,05,91,068/- received from Vinayak Developers ed. Appellant stated in its reply that the receipt included in -18 and refund has been claimed in the A. Y. 2018 Appellant furnished Invoice, ledger, and Profit & loss A/c. for A.Y. 2017 S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 ng Officer, however, rejected this explanation and proceeded to estimate profit at 20% on the said receipts, On further appeal, the assessee furnished certain additional support of the grounds raised. However, after considering the assessment order, the material placed on record and the submissions advanced, the learned CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of he issue of low net profit stands extracted 6.1.8 I have carefully considered the assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions furnished during the appellate estimating net profit @ 8%. Before the AO the Appellant submitted only ledger of expenses and could not furnished all the bills which were asked to produce by the AO. During the appellant proceedings also appellant could as complete bills/vouchers in support of various expenses claimedby the Appellant. He only submitted same ledger/ bills which appellant furnished before AO. so I am also of the view that the books of accounts produced by appellant before AO ete and correct. Therefore, estimation of net profit is 1 raised by the Similarly, the addition relating to receipts from Vinayak A) recorded the cause notice dated 06/03/2021, Appellant caused by the AO as to why the assessment should not be received from Vinayak Developers ed. Appellant stated in its reply that the receipt included in 18 and refund has been claimed in the A. Y. 2018-19. Appellant furnished Invoice, ledger, and Profit & loss A/c. for A.Y. 2017- Printed from counselvise.com 18. The reply of Appellant has duly been considered acceptable because of following reasons: i) Appellant failed to justify why income is included in the A.Y. 2017 whereas TDS claimed in A. Y. 2018 ii) In any financial transaction, there are two parties, one is payer and other is payee. First, payer gives the cash/cheque etc. after that, payee claimed receipt of the cash/cheque etc. But, in this case, situation is reverse. Here, first assessee claimed Page 6 of 9 AAOCS5345P THAKKAR Α.Υ. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED 2018 ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021 (Vinayak Developers) did not claim to give anything. Hence, contention of Appellant is not principally correct iii) In mercantile accounting policy, first payer debits his account being expense after that payee credit his account being income. In this case, first assessee claimed credited its account while Vinayak Developers did not debit its account. Hence, contention of Appellant is not correct as per accounting policy. iv) In the document submi and affix its stamp for issuance of documents but Vinayak Developers did not sign and affix its stamp at the place given for certified and approved the contention of documents. Hence, Appellant failed to confir that the transaction is for the Α. Υ. 2017 v) Here, Appellant is a company, so it should be more cautious comparing to other entities during the accounting for the transaction. vi) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is revealed that W. O. Date (It is presumed that W. O. means work order) is 25/03/2017 and its value is Rs. 3,65,00,000/ work order which is not signed by other party does not give any right to account for the amount in the A. Y. 20 only after completion for work or after crediting to the assessee by other party in its books. vii) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is revealed that Bill period is 01/04/2017 to 25/04/2017 and bill date is 26/0 which proves that transaction is purely related to A. Υ. 2018 viii) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is also revealed that assessee mentioned TDS recoveries of Rs. 3,90,352/ Developers. But, Vinayak Developers did not m 2017-18. It clearly proves that Vinayak Developers never ever credited the amount for assessee for A. Y. 2017 cannot debit the amount for Vinayak Developers in its books. ix) Appellant furnished the Pr details of source of credit including the name Vinayak Developers is nothing but manipulation of the account to substantiate that the amount is received in the A. Y. 2017 S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 18. The reply of Appellant has duly been considered but same was not acceptable because of following reasons:- i) Appellant failed to justify why income is included in the A.Y. 2017 whereas TDS claimed in A. Y. 2018-19. ii) In any financial transaction, there are two parties, one is payer and yee. First, payer gives the cash/cheque etc. after that, payee claimed receipt of the cash/cheque etc. But, in this case, situation is reverse. Here, first assessee claimed Page 6 of 9 AAOCS5345P THAKKAR Α.Υ. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED 2018 /AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032228439(1) receipt but other party (Vinayak Developers) did not claim to give anything. Hence, contention of Appellant is not principally correct iii) In mercantile accounting policy, first payer debits his account being fter that payee credit his account being income. In this case, first assessee claimed credited its account while Vinayak Developers did not debit its account. Hence, contention of Appellant is not correct as per accounting policy. iv) In the document submitted by the Appellant invoice assessee signed and affix its stamp for issuance of documents but Vinayak Developers did not sign and affix its stamp at the place given for certified and approved the contention of documents. Hence, Appellant failed to confir that the transaction is for the Α. Υ. 2017-18. v) Here, Appellant is a company, so it should be more cautious comparing to other entities during the accounting for the transaction. vi) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is revealed that W. O. Date (It is presumed that W. O. means work order) is 25/03/2017 and its value is Rs. 3,65,00,000/-. From this information, it is very clear that work order which is not signed by other party does not give any right to account for the amount in the A. Y. 2017-18. It must be accounted for only after completion for work or after crediting to the assessee by other party in its books. vii) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is revealed that Bill period is 01/04/2017 to 25/04/2017 and bill date is 26/0 which proves that transaction is purely related to A. Υ. 2018 viii) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is also revealed that assessee mentioned TDS recoveries of Rs. 3,90,352/- Developers. But, Vinayak Developers did not made any TDS for A. Y. 18. It clearly proves that Vinayak Developers never ever credited the amount for assessee for A. Y. 2017-18 in its books. Hence, assessee cannot debit the amount for Vinayak Developers in its books. ix) Appellant furnished the Profit & Loss a/c for A. Y. 2017 details of source of credit including the name Vinayak Developers is nothing but manipulation of the account to substantiate that the amount is received in the A. Y. 2017-18. Actually, Appellant failed to disclose the S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 but same was not i) Appellant failed to justify why income is included in the A.Y. 2017-18 ii) In any financial transaction, there are two parties, one is payer and yee. First, payer gives the cash/cheque etc. after that, payee claimed receipt of the cash/cheque etc. But, in this case, situation is reverse. Here, first assessee claimed Page 6 of 9 AAOCS5345P- SN THAKKAR Α.Υ. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED 2018-19 22/1032228439(1) receipt but other party (Vinayak Developers) did not claim to give anything. Hence, contention of iii) In mercantile accounting policy, first payer debits his account being fter that payee credit his account being income. In this case, first assessee claimed credited its account while Vinayak Developers did not debit its account. Hence, contention of Appellant is not correct as per tted by the Appellant invoice assessee signed and affix its stamp for issuance of documents but Vinayak Developers did not sign and affix its stamp at the place given for certified and approved the contention of documents. Hence, Appellant failed to confirm v) Here, Appellant is a company, so it should be more cautious comparing vi) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is revealed that W. O. Date (It is presumed that W. O. means work order) is 25/03/2017 and . From this information, it is very clear that work order which is not signed by other party does not give any right to 18. It must be accounted for only after completion for work or after crediting to the assessee by other vii) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is revealed that Bill period is 01/04/2017 to 25/04/2017 and bill date is 26/04/2017 which proves that transaction is purely related to A. Υ. 2018-19. viii) On perusal of document, so called invoice, it is also revealed that for Vinayak ade any TDS for A. Y. 18. It clearly proves that Vinayak Developers never ever credited 18 in its books. Hence, assessee cannot debit the amount for Vinayak Developers in its books. ofit & Loss a/c for A. Y. 2017-18 with details of source of credit including the name Vinayak Developers is nothing but manipulation of the account to substantiate that the amount 18. Actually, Appellant failed to disclose the Printed from counselvise.com said amount in the A. Y. 2018 Appellant included the amount received from Vinayak Developers in A. Y. 2017-18 by manipulating to avoid any tax liabilities in A. Y. 2018 x) From the above discussion, it is A. Y. 2018-19 but Appellant did not account the same in the books during the year under consideration, after detection the discrepancy, assessee tried to show that said amount is incorporated in the A. Y. 2017 Further, assessee did not furnish any conclusive and reliable evidence in support of the 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising pages 1 to 185. Along with the Paper Book, the assessee has also moved an application (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence consists of party respect of expenditure on purchases, guest charges, consultancy charg explains that although ledger accounts of these expenses were furnished during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer required further particulars which could not be produced at that stage. The relevant detai under: “ (i) Purchase totaling Rs. 5,83,49,258 (ii) Guest House Rent totalling Rs. 6,99,000 (iii) Designer Charges totaling Rs. 3,00,000 (iv) Consultancy Charges totaling Rs. 3,18,500 (v) Professional Fees totali 5. Having heard the parties at length, and upon due consideration of the factual matrix, we are of the view that the S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 said amount in the A. Y. 2018-19 to avoid any tax liabilities. Hence, Appellant included the amount received from Vinayak Developers in A. Y. 18 by manipulating to avoid any tax liabilities in A. Y. 2018 x) From the above discussion, it is evident that transaction was related to 19 but Appellant did not account the same in the books during the year under consideration, after detection the discrepancy, assessee tried to show that said amount is incorporated in the A. Y. 2017 rther, assessee did not furnish any conclusive and reliable evidence in the claim.” The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising pages 1 to 185. Along with the Paper Book, the assessee has also moved an application under Rule 29 of the Income (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence consists of party respect of expenditure on purchases, guest-house rent, designer charges, consultancy charges and professional fees. The assessee explains that although ledger accounts of these expenses were furnished during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer required further particulars which could not be produced at that stage. The relevant details of additional evidence are reproduced as (i) Purchase totaling Rs. 5,83,49,258 (ii) Guest House Rent totalling Rs. 6,99,000 (iii) Designer Charges totaling Rs. 3,00,000 (iv) Consultancy Charges totaling Rs. 3,18,500 (v) Professional Fees totaling Rs. 77,805 Having heard the parties at length, and upon due consideration of the factual matrix, we are of the view that the S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 19 to avoid any tax liabilities. Hence, Appellant included the amount received from Vinayak Developers in A. Y. 18 by manipulating to avoid any tax liabilities in A. Y. 2018-19. evident that transaction was related to 19 but Appellant did not account the same in the books during the year under consideration, after detection the discrepancy, assessee tried to show that said amount is incorporated in the A. Y. 2017-18. rther, assessee did not furnish any conclusive and reliable evidence in The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising pages 1 to 185. Along with the Paper Book, the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence consists of party-wise details in house rent, designer es and professional fees. The assessee explains that although ledger accounts of these expenses were furnished during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer required further particulars which could not be produced at that ls of additional evidence are reproduced as Having heard the parties at length, and upon due consideration of the factual matrix, we are of the view that the Printed from counselvise.com additional evidence sought to be adduced deserves to be admitted. The details now furnished addresses of the parties, their PANs, and supporting particulars bear directly on the core issue in dispute, namely, the correctness and completeness of the books of account and the justification for rejection of the same under section 145(3) of the A documents go to the root of the matter and have a material bearing on a fair adjudication of the controversy. 5.1 In our considered opinion, the interests of justice would be best served by admitting these documents as additional evidence, particularly as their absence had weighed significantly with the Assessing Officer in invoking section 145(3). We accordingly admit the additional evidence under Rule 29. 5.2 Consequently, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall examine the party determine the issue of rejection of books of account and estimation of income strictly in accordance with law. 5.3 With regard to the addition relating to M/s Vinayak Developers, the Assessing Officer is directed to examine afresh the assessee’s contention that the i S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 additional evidence sought to be adduced deserves to be admitted. The details now furnished—containing, inter alia, the names addresses of the parties, their PANs, and supporting particulars bear directly on the core issue in dispute, namely, the correctness and completeness of the books of account and the justification for rejection of the same under section 145(3) of the A documents go to the root of the matter and have a material bearing on a fair adjudication of the controversy. In our considered opinion, the interests of justice would be best served by admitting these documents as additional evidence, ularly as their absence had weighed significantly with the Assessing Officer in invoking section 145(3). We accordingly admit the additional evidence under Rule 29. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall examine the party-wise details of expenditure and re he issue of rejection of books of account and estimation of income strictly in accordance with law. With regard to the addition relating to M/s Vinayak the Assessing Officer is directed to examine afresh the assessee’s contention that the income in question had already been S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 additional evidence sought to be adduced deserves to be admitted. containing, inter alia, the names and addresses of the parties, their PANs, and supporting particulars— bear directly on the core issue in dispute, namely, the correctness and completeness of the books of account and the justification for rejection of the same under section 145(3) of the Act. These documents go to the root of the matter and have a material bearing In our considered opinion, the interests of justice would be best served by admitting these documents as additional evidence, ularly as their absence had weighed significantly with the Assessing Officer in invoking section 145(3). We accordingly admit Consequently, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing wise details of expenditure and re- he issue of rejection of books of account and estimation With regard to the addition relating to M/s Vinayak the Assessing Officer is directed to examine afresh the ncome in question had already been Printed from counselvise.com recognized in an earlier year, and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law, after conducting necessary verification and granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. 5.4 In view of our decision to restore Assessing Officer, the remaining grounds of appeal are rendered academic and do not require independent adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26/11/2025 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// S N Thakkar ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 recognized in an earlier year, and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law, after conducting necessary verification and granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. In view of our decision to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, the remaining grounds of appeal are rendered academic and do not require independent adjudication. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/11/2025. - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai S N Thakkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA No. 4588/MUM/2025 recognized in an earlier year, and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law, after conducting necessary verification and the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, the remaining grounds of appeal are rendered academic and do not require independent adjudication. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /11/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "