MUKESHKUMAR BHAWARLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,
MUMBAI

BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
7

(A.Y.2014-15)

Mukeshkumar Bhawarlal
Jain
Shop no. 11, 215/217,
Kalbadevi Road,
Abhinandan Market, ground floor,
Mumbai-400002. Vs.
Assessing Officer-NFAC
Assessment Unit, Delhi.

थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AIMPJ2447C
Appellant
..
Respondent

Appellant by :
Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Respondent by :
Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. DR

Date of Hearing
13.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
21.11.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]
dated 22.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“Ground 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,01,71,945/-made by Assessing Officer U/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the cash deposits as unexplained investment.

P a g e | 2
Ground 2: The order made under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer is bad-in- law, ultra virus and without appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective and is liable to be annulled.
The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
Additional Grounds:
Additional Ground No. 01
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as valid without appreciating the fact that the said notice is void ab initio since it does not bear any Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by the Circular No. 19/2019 issued by the CBDT.
Additional Ground No. 02
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as valid without appreciating the fact that the said notice was issued by the Ld. Juri ictional
Assessing Officer and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in contravention of the faceless scheme and notification issued by the Central
Board of Direct Taxes in Notification no. 18 of 2022. Additional Ground No. 03
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as valid without appreciating the fact that the prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act was granted in a mechanical manner without any application of mind.
The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal.

P a g e | 3
reply within two weeks. As there was no response, an order u/s. 148A(d) alongwith a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 22.07.2022. As the assessee failed to comply to multiple notices issued by the ld. AO, assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act determining total income of Rs. 303,85,075/- vide order dated
18.05.2023. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld.
CIT(A) who dismissed the same vide order dated 22.10.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee could not file requisite documentary evidences before the ld. AO, which have now been placed before us in the form of a paperbook. He has requested for remanding the matter to ld. AO for verification of these documents. Ld. DR has also not objected to the said proposition.
5. After hearing both the parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the juri ictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and make requisite compliance before the ld. JAO.
6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 21.11.2025 (BEENA PILLAI)
(RENU JAUHRI)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

P a g e | 4
Place: Mumbai
Date 21.11.2025
Anandi.Nambi/STENO
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु / CIT
4. िवभागीय
ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

स ािपत
ित ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.