PRAVAHAN VENTURES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
More judgments on Section 69B
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Rajguru Foods, BijapurITA 77/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Alka Ajit Shah, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1915/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rama Krishna Jewellers Private Limited…ITA 1289/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Front Line Guards Private Limited, Navi… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(1)…ITA 7909/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Haripa Industries, Kolkata vs ITO, Central Circle 4(1), KolkataITA 2283/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026