PRAVAHAN VENTURES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETHAssessment Year : 2022-23
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated
31-08-2025 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),
Delhi (in short „NFAC‟)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short „Ld.
Commissioner‟) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for the AY.
2022-23. 2. In the instant case, the AO has made the addition of Rs.1,15,58,855/- u/s.
69B of the Act, on failure of the Assessee to furnish any reconciliation/explanationqua differential amount of Rs.1,15,58,855/- for true value as per (i) “Fixed Assets” and (ii) details submitted by the Assessee on 18-02-
2
2024 with regard toproperty purchased during the year under considerationto the tune of Rs.9,99,93,810/- as against the figure of Rs. 8,84,34,955/- as mentioned in the gross loss, under the head “Fixed Assets” in ITR.
The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the Assesse by considering the peculiar facts and circumstancesspecific to the effect that the Assessee merely filed copies of the agreement pages, evidencing property values, but failed to reconcile or explain the discrepancy between the amount shown in its returns and those submitted during assessmentproceedings.
Thus,the Assesseebeing aggrieved has challenged the impugned order by filing this appeal.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the issues involved, remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, especiallyin the absence of proper explanation and reconciliation of the consideration amount shown with regard toproperty and mentioning the gross loss under the fixed assets, as observed by both the authorities below. Somehow now the Assessee has filed certain documents reconciling and explaining the differential amount and, therefore, by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the reconciliation and documents submitted by the Assessee are essential for proper and just decision of the case, thus, for the said purpose and submittal justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by considering the documents and reconciliation, as filed before us, which the Assessee undertakes to file before the Ld. Commissioner, in due course of time.
3
6. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh; suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17-12-2025 [BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH] [NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai,
Dated: 17-12-2025
Copy to :
1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file
By Order
Dy./Asst.