J K PATEL & CO ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ायपीठ, मुंबई |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“F” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 5071/Mum/2025
Assessment Year: 2011-12

J K Patel & Co.
306, Blue Diamond
Pandit Solicitor Road
Malad East
Mumbai - 400097
[PAN: AACFJ3131H]

Vs
Income Tax Officer – 41(3)(2),
Mumbai
अपीलाथ/ (Appellant)

 यथ/ (Respondent)

Assessee by:
Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, A/R
Revenue by:
Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. D/R) (virtually appeared)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/10/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24/10/2025

आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assesse is preferred against the order dated
05/06/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)]” pertaining to AY 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under:-
“1. The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in as much as he has decided the appeal as if the appellant had not made any submission which is not the fact OR the Hon. CIT (A) has completely ignored or failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the Appellant with as many as 41 Annexures as is evident from the fact that there is no whisper in the impugned Appellate order about having considered the detailed submissions made by the Appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not affording to the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal in spite of the fact that detailed submissions along with several supporting documents, bank statements, confirmations, copies of binding judicial pronouncements, etc. were filed in response to Notice u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act.
3. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal, thus sustaining the action of the learned AO completing the reassessment with a haste and mechanical mindset which is against the principle of natural justice and therefore the impugned assessment ought to have been quashed by the learned CIT (A).
4. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal, thus sustaining the action of the I.T.A. No. 5071/Mum/2025
2

learned AO adding unsecured loan taken during the year amounting to Rs.9,30,000/- by ignoring the unassailable supporting documents submitted during the reassessment proceedings. Additions so made ought to have been deleted by the learned CIT (A).
5. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal, thus sustaining the action of the learned AO making addition of the whole of the Purchase Value of Rs.1,55,67,940/- from M/s. Maan Diamonds, in place of 8% thereof of Rs.12,29,435/-, as added in the original assessment proceedings without any cogent reason for such deviation and on the direction of the learned Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 without considering the facts of the case fully and without providing any copy of the statement recorded by the investigation team or affording any opportunity of cross examination. The addition so made is against the principles of natural justice and therefore ought to have been deleted by the learned CIT (A).
6. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal, thus sustaining the action of the learned AO by considering the value of alleged bogus purchase at Rs.1,55,67,940/- whereas the actual amount of purchase from Maan Diamonds amounted to only
Rs.1,53,67,940/-.
7. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal, thus sustaining the action of the learned AO assessing the income at Rs.1,83,66,165/- by not reducing Rs.12,29,435/- which represented 8% of the alleged bogus purchase already once added in the original assessment vide Order dated 19-12-2018. This has resulted in subjecting the sum of Rs.12,29,435/- to double taxation.
8. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal, thus sustaining the action of the learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, amplify, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of Appeal.”

I.T.A. No. 5071/Mum/2025
3

Mumbai, Dated 24/10/2025
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs

I.T.A. No. 5071/Mum/2025
4

आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER