SHRI KISHORE MOHANLAL DINGRA,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CIR-41(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2258/MUM/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 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 addition of unexplained credits in bank accounts and discrepancies in property valuation. The Assessing Officer had made several additions to the assessee's income, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the submissions, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on specific grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32059 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMESH THAR
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 201; 133(6); 69C; 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra, 105, Dosti Ambrosia S.M. Road, Mumbai-400037. Vs. Dy. CIT Circle 41(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. KB/614, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ATXPD 4896 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nimesh Thar Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07.02.2024 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: Grounds of appeal against the Appellant Order & Grounds of Decision dated 07/02/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other: 1) The Learned NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.2,42,29,763/ total credits appearing in the including cash deposit of Rs.93,16,000/ section 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The Learned NFAC has further erred in law & on facts in not considering peak credits while upholding th of addition of Rs.2,42,29,763/ the bank accounts of the appellant including cash deposit of Rs.93,16,000/ of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) The Learned NF the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.60,92,300/ difference in valuation of property as per Stamp valuation authority and the sale consideration actually paid under the head Income-from other sourc 56(2)(x) of the IT Act, 1961. 4) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs.15,65,200/ under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) The Learned the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs.80,49,600/ under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposi Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing surcharge of Rs.41,28,522/ under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/ or delete and/or modify and/ or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 Grounds of appeal against the Appellant Order & Grounds of Decision dated 07/02/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other: 1) The Learned NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.2,42,29,763/ total credits appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant including cash deposit of Rs.93,16,000/- as per the provisions of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The Learned NFAC has further erred in law & on facts in not considering peak credits while upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.2,42,29,763/-being total credits appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant including cash deposit of Rs.93,16,000/- as per the provisions of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) The Learned NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.60,92,300/ difference in valuation of property as per Stamp valuation authority and the sale consideration actually paid under the -from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act, 1961. 4) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs.15,65,200/ under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs.80,49,600/ under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs. 4,544/ Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing surcharge of Rs.41,28,522/ under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/ or delete and/or modify and/ or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 2 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 Grounds of appeal against the Appellant Order & Grounds of Decision dated 07/02/2024 passed by the National Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other: 1) The Learned NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.2,42,29,763/- being bank accounts of the appellant as per the provisions of 2) The Learned NFAC has further erred in law & on facts in not e Learned AO's action being total credits appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant including cash deposit of as per the provisions of section 69A rws 115BBE AC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.60,92,300/- being the difference in valuation of property as per Stamp valuation authority and the sale consideration actually paid under the es as per the provisions of section 4) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs.15,65,200/- CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing interest of Rs.80,49,600/- 6) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding ng interest of Rs. 4,544/- under 7) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of imposing surcharge of Rs.41,28,522/- The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/ or delete and/or modify and/ or alter the aforesaid grounds of 9) All the aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the alternative and without prejudice 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel fo there was a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal due to old age of the assessee and certain health issues. In view of the reasons cited by the assessee, we condoned the admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case a assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer pointed out certain discrepancies in the à-vis books of accounts and gathered by him way of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Accordingly made additions, firstly bank accounts to be taxed at Rs.60,92,300/- being the value of the property and prescribed valuation authority and the sale consideration shown by the assessee, thirdly addition of Rs.2,50,000/ towards credit card expenses. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has fi Book containing pages 1 to 201 and also filed a written synopsis. Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 9) All the aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the alternative and without prejudice to one another. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal due to old age of the assessee and certain health issues. In view of the reasons cited by the assessee, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal and for adjudication. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the scrutiny completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer pointed out certain discrepancies in the turnover declared in return of income fil vis books of accounts and deposits in bank accounts, which were way of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Accordingly firstly, amounting to Rs.2,42,29,763 bank accounts to be taxed at special rates, secondly being the value of the property and prescribed valuation authority and the sale consideration shown by the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- u/s 69 towards credit card expenses. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has fi Book containing pages 1 to 201 and also filed a written synopsis. Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 3 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 9) All the aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the r the assessee submitted that a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal due to old age of the assessee and certain health issues. In view of the reasons cited in filing the appeal and re that in the scrutiny tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer pointed out certain return of income filed vis- accounts, which were way of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Accordingly, he amounting to Rs.2,42,29,763/- as credits in secondly, addition of being the value of the property and prescribed valuation authority and the sale consideration shown by the u/s 69C of the Act towards credit card expenses. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 201 and also filed a written synopsis. 5. In relation to ground No referred to discrepancy in the turnover vis-à-vis total credits appearing in the assessee and GST return CIT(A) upheld the addition observing as under: “I have considered the facts of the case and submissions filed by the appellant. I find that even though the books of accou not required to be maintained u/s 44AD, but the appellant has to show evidences of conducting the eligible business and basis of turnover shown. However the appellant has failed to show evidences of conducting the eligible business and basis of turnover during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. Further the claim of the appellant that the cash withdrawn but not utilized and again deposited in bank accounts, however the appellant has not submitted any evidence to support his claim. I find that the turnover as per GST return is only Rs.18,00,000/ is Rs.1,29,90,255/ are total credits of Rs.2,42,29,763/ explained the r GST return, Income tax return and credits appearing in the bank accounts. Further I find that most of the expenses were incurred for personal purposes. I find that the facts of the case case laws relied upon by the appellant are not identical to the facts of the present case hence the contention of the appellant is not found acceptable. In view of the above discrepancies the addition made by the AO is confirmed and ground of appeal raised by the appellant is 5.1 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the written synopsis submitted detailed explanation reconciling the deposits in the bank account and turnover declared in the The relevant submission of the assessee reproduce “3) Working of amount to be excluded including cash deposit added u/s 69A r.w.s.HSBBE of IT Act. Particulars Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 In relation to ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) discrepancy in the turnover declared in return of income vis total credits appearing in the bank accounts of the GST return. In absence of any explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition observing as under: I have considered the facts of the case and submissions filed by the appellant. I find that even though the books of accou not required to be maintained u/s 44AD, but the appellant has to show evidences of conducting the eligible business and basis of turnover shown. However the appellant has failed to show evidences of conducting the eligible business and basis of nover during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. Further the claim of the appellant that the cash withdrawn but not utilized and again deposited in bank accounts, however the appellant has not submitted any evidence is claim. I find that the turnover as per GST return is only Rs.18,00,000/- and turnover shown in the return of income is Rs.1,29,90,255/- whereas as per the bank statements there are total credits of Rs.2,42,29,763/-. The appellant has not explained the reasons for differences between the figures shown GST return, Income tax return and credits appearing in the bank accounts. Further I find that most of the expenses were incurred for personal purposes. I find that the facts of the case case laws by the appellant are not identical to the facts of the present case hence the contention of the appellant is not found acceptable. In view of the above discrepancies the addition made by the AO is confirmed and ground of appeal raised by the dismissed.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the written synopsis submitted detailed explanation reconciling the deposits in the bank account and turnover declared in the return of income. relevant submission of the assessee reproduced as under: Working of amount to be excluded including cash deposit added u/s 69A r.w.s.HSBBE of IT Act. - ICICI Bank Amount Reason Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 4 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) declared in return of income bank accounts of the . In absence of any explanation, the Ld. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions filed by the appellant. I find that even though the books of accounts are not required to be maintained u/s 44AD, but the appellant has to show evidences of conducting the eligible business and basis of turnover shown. However the appellant has failed to show evidences of conducting the eligible business and basis of nover during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. Further the claim of the appellant that the cash withdrawn but not utilized and again deposited in bank accounts, however the appellant has not submitted any evidence is claim. I find that the turnover as per GST return is and turnover shown in the return of income whereas as per the bank statements there . The appellant has not easons for differences between the figures shown GST return, Income tax return and credits appearing in the bank accounts. Further I find that most of the expenses were incurred for personal purposes. I find that the facts of the case case laws by the appellant are not identical to the facts of the present case hence the contention of the appellant is not found acceptable. In view of the above discrepancies the addition made by the AO is confirmed and ground of appeal raised by the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the written synopsis submitted detailed explanation reconciling the deposits in return of income. d as under: Working of amount to be excluded including cash deposit added u/s Apar Advertisers Cash Deposit TRANSFER A/c.074001507878 RETURNED RETURNED- JASPAL CARGO CARRIERS RETURN FROM SWASTIK CARS (CAR PUR) Race Contra Sapphire Land Dev. Pvt. Ltd Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 Rs.46,05,000 Rs. 40, 00, 000 already considered in ITR and balance of Rs. 6,05, 000 is out opening debtors (31/03/2017) of Rs. 14,00, 000. Copy of Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2017 along with break-up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2017 is reflecting in ITR filed for the A.Y. 2017-18 (Page No. 14, 15 & 16 of paper book filed dated 09/10/20241 Rs.80,94,000 Considered separately in point No. 5 below Rs.5,00,000 It is transfer from Appellant's wife account. Rs. 90,000 It is cheque return can't be considered as income. Rs. 1,42,000 It is cheque return can't be considered as income. RETURN FROM SWASTIK Rs. 45,125 It is cheque return can't be considered as income. Rs. 1,50,000 It is already considered as income from stake money in ITR under the head income from other page No. 95 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024) Rs. 24,630 It is contra entry can't be considered as income. Sapphire Land Dev. Pvt. Rs.25,00,000 Rs.30,00,000 Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 5 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 Rs. 40, 00, 000 already considered in ITR and Rs. 6,05, 000 is out opening debtors (31/03/2017) of Rs. 14,00, 000. Copy of Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2017 along with up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2017 is reflecting in ITR filed for the 18 (Page No. 14, 15 & 16 of paper book filed dated 09/10/20241 Considered separately in point It is transfer from Appellant's wife account. It is cheque return can't be considered as income. It is cheque return can't be considered as income. It is cheque return can't be considered as income. It is already considered as income from stake money in ITR under the head income from other sources (COI page No. 95 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024) It is contra entry can't be considered as income. Rs.30,00,000 Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR Ravindra Baliram JASPAL CARGO CARRIERS DHARMENDRA KESHAVDAS Total Balance (Rs.2,24,67,763 minus Rs.1,82,73,657) Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 (Page No. 5 of paper book dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31 along with break debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Rs.3,50,000 Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2 Copy of balance sheet as 31 03-2018 along with break of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Rs.5,58,000 Shown as Unsecured loans in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31 03-2018 along with break of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Rs.3,00,000 Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet a 03-2018 along with break of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Rs.1,82,73,657 Rs.41,94,107 (Details attached herewith) Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 6 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31-03-2018 along with break-up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31- 2018 along with break-up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached Shown as Unsecured loans in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). balance sheet as 31- 2018 along with break-up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31- 2018 along with break-up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached 4) Working of amount to be excluded in amount added u/s 69A r.w.s.HSBBE of IT Act. Particulars Sapphire Land Dev. Pvt. Ltd Balance (Rs. 17,63, 117 minus Rs. 5,00,000) 5) Out of the total cash deposit of Rs.80,94,000/ withdrawal was Rs.38,85,000/ at Para No. 5.7, had opening cash on hand of Rs.7,62,961/ 2017-18 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024) considering the same peak credit/excess cash deposit (after reducing re withdrawals & opening cash on hand) amounts to (Rs.80,94,000/- minus RS.38, attached herewith). 6) In the case of Appellant's business of sale and purchase of advertisement hoardings was been accepted for the A.Y. 2016 para No.3.6, page No. 6 Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 Working of amount to be excluded in amount including cash deposit added u/s 69A r.w.s.HSBBE of IT Act. - PMC Bank Amount Reason Sapphire Land Dev. Pvt. Rs. 5,00,000 Rs. 30, 00, 000 Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31 03-2018 along with break-up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. Balance (Rs. 17,63, 117 Rs.12,63,117 5) Out of the total cash deposit of Rs.80,94,000/- in ICICI Bank, total cash withdrawal was Rs.38,85,000/- (Duly mentioned in Assessment Order 5.7, page No. 13) (being redeposit of cash) and appellant had opening cash on hand of Rs.7,62,961/- (Page No. 16 being ITR for A.Y. 18 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024) considering the same peak credit/excess cash deposit (after reducing re withdrawals & opening cash on hand) amounts to minus RS.38,85,000/- minus Rs.7,62,961/ attached herewith). 6) In the case of Appellant's business of sale and purchase of advertisement hoardings was been accepted for the A.Y. 2016 para No.3.6, page No. 6 of the Assessment order dated 30/12/2018 Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 7 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 including cash deposit Rs. 30, 00, 000 Shown as advances (Liability) in ITR (Page No. 5 of paper filed dated 09/10/2024). Copy of balance sheet as 31- 2018 along with up of debtors, creditors and other advances is attached herewith. in ICICI Bank, total cash (Duly mentioned in Assessment Order (being redeposit of cash) and appellant Page No. 16 being ITR for A.Y. 18 of paper book filed dated 09/10/2024) considering the same peak credit/excess cash deposit (after reducing re-deposits of cash withdrawals & opening cash on hand) amounts to Rs.34.46.039/- minus Rs.7,62,961/-) (working is 6) In the case of Appellant's business of sale and purchase of advertisement hoardings was been accepted for the A.Y. 2016-17 vide of the Assessment order dated 30/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 virtue of which Rule of consistency The learned AO held that where assessee has claimed to have received amounts for advertisi for these receipts show that they are not in the nature of business receipts and have gone to fund activities which are not related to advertisement business. (Para No. 5.4, page No. 7 of the assessment or words, the learned AO held that appellant is not into the business of advertisement based on application/utilization of amount received without bringing any material to show that the assessee was not engaged in advertisement business. 7) Therefore it is contended that the head business is ICCI bank as per point No.3 above) +Rs.12,63,117/ PMC bank as per point no.4 above) +Rs.34,46 above) +Rs.40,00,000 (Apar Advertisers as per point No.1 above)]. Gross receipts considered in ITR as per point No.1 above is Rs.1,29,90,255/ which is more than claimed in ITR be accept u/s u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of IT Act is required to be deleted Hence, Gr. No 1 & 2 of the Appellant may 5.2 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record have been made for the first time support of same have interest of substantial justice, Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (Copy is attached herewith) by Rule of consistency should be followed. The learned AO held that where assessee has claimed to have received amounts for advertising business, the study of bank transaction pattern for these receipts show that they are not in the nature of business receipts and have gone to fund activities which are not related to advertisement business. (Para No. 5.4, page No. 7 of the assessment or words, the learned AO held that appellant is not into the business of advertisement based on application/utilization of amount received without bringing any material to show that the assessee was not engaged in advertisement business. erefore it is contended that, total receipts to be considered under the head business is Rs.1,29,03,263/- [Rs.41,94,107/- ICCI bank as per point No.3 above) +Rs.12,63,117/- (balance credits in PMC bank as per point no.4 above) +Rs.34,46,039/- above) +Rs.40,00,000 (Apar Advertisers as per point No.1 above)]. Gross receipts considered in ITR as per point No.1 above is Rs.1,29,90,255/ which is more than Rs.1,29,03,263/-. Therefore, gross receipts claimed in ITR be accepted and addition made of Rs.2,42,29,763/ u/s u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of IT Act is required to be deleted Hence, Gr. No 1 & 2 of the Appellant may be allowed.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that all these submissions have been made for the first time before us and no evidence same have been filed for reconciliation, therefore, interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 8 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 (Copy is attached herewith) by should be followed. The learned AO held that where assessee has claimed to have received ng business, the study of bank transaction pattern for these receipts show that they are not in the nature of business receipts and have gone to fund activities which are not related to advertisement business. (Para No. 5.4, page No. 7 of the assessment order). In simple words, the learned AO held that appellant is not into the business of advertisement based on application/utilization of amount received without bringing any material to show that the assessee was not engaged in , total receipts to be considered under - (balance credits in (balance credits in (as per point No.5 above) +Rs.40,00,000 (Apar Advertisers as per point No.1 above)]. Gross receipts considered in ITR as per point No.1 above is Rs.1,29,90,255/- . Therefore, gross receipts ed and addition made of Rs.2,42,29,763/- u/s u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of IT Act is required to be deleted. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused find that all these submissions and no evidences in , therefore, in the we feel it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the opportunity to the assessee to provide all documents to support its contention made above. The ground No. 1 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In respect of gro submission explaining discrepancy. As no documentary evidence were filed in support of ground No. 3 is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after considering submission of the assessee. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee statistical purposes. 7. The ground Nos. 4 to 7 are consequential and Ground No. 8 and 9 are general, hence these grounds are dismisse 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 file of the Assessing Officer with the opportunity to the assessee to provide all documents to support its contention made above. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In respect of ground No. 3 also the assessee has filed written submission explaining discrepancy. As no documentary evidence filed in support of its contention before the Ld. CIT(A) also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer cided afresh after considering submission of the assessee. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee 7. The ground Nos. 4 to 7 are consequential and Ground No. 8 and 9 are general, hence these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 9 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 file of the Assessing Officer with the opportunity to the assessee to provide all documents to support its contentions of the appeal of the assessee also the assessee has filed written submission explaining discrepancy. As no documentary evidence its contention before the Ld. CIT(A), the also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer cided afresh after considering submission of the assessee. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7. The ground Nos. 4 to 7 are consequential and Ground No. 8 and d as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra 10 ITA No. 2258/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "