GYANCHAND ROOPCHAND MADHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in in determining the income of the appellant at Rs. 52,09,050/- in the assessment order as against the income declared of Rs.50,14,610/- in the return of income.

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer ['AO'] amounting to Rs.1,21,823/-under the head ‘Income from House Property w.r.t. Rent received from 'Reliance Infratel by considering the figure as per Form 26AS i.e. Rs.5,00,000 as against the actual figure of Rent received i.e. Rs.3,25,967/- which was reduced due to Covid-19.

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.58,333/- on account of alleged receipt of money in the nature of Tenancy Right Transfer Fees merely on basis of conjectures and presumptions. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the above-mentioned addition of Rs. 58,333/- based on a excel sheet allegedly retrieved from the desktop of one Shri Chetan Sagar during search proceedings, despite no opportunity being given to the appellant to cross-examine the said person regarding the noting in the excel sheet. (c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the said Shri Chetan Sagar was never questioned or examined by the Assessing Officer regarding the notings of this sheet relied upon to make the addition.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating the submissions and supporting documents filed by the appellant during the Assessment proceedings.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act, confirming the action of the Learned AO without affording proper opportunity of being heard which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and settled judicial precedents.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in relying upon an Excel sheet allegedly retrieved from an employee's computer system document lacking authenticity, authorship, and evidentiary value, commonly Page 3 referred to as a ‘dumb document'. The reliance on such unverified material, without any corroborative evidence or opportunity of rebuttal, and its subsequent confirmation by the CIT (A), is unjust, unfair, and violative of the principles of natural justice.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under sections 234A, 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts of the case.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, it was noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 96 days as the appeal was filed on 04.08.2025 as against the statutory time line expiring on 30.04.2025. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay has been submitted by the assessee stating that the Senior Accountant dealing with the matter, due to personal exigencies, could not file the appeal in time. The delay is stated to be bonafide and not intentional. In case of rejection, the assessee would suffer irreparable loss and injury and valuable opportunity of being heard on merits. It is a requested to condone the delay.