PRAVAHAN VENTURES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6712/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 December 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reconciliation and documents submitted by the assessee were essential for a proper decision. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,15,58,855/- to the assessee's income under Section 69B for failure to provide reconciliation for a differential amount related to fixed assets. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed as they failed to reconcile the discrepancy.

What were the issues?

Whether the case should be remanded for fresh consideration of submitted reconciliation documents regarding fixed assets and the resultant differential amount.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

1.

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- 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.

3.

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.

4.

Thus,the Assesseebeing aggrieved has challenged the impugned order by filing this appeal.

5.

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.

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.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17-12-2025

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →