INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARISHKUMAR VASTIMAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2247/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without calling for a remand report from the AO, despite the assessee filing additional evidence during the appellate proceedings. The AO was not given an opportunity to examine or oppose these additional evidences.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) who deleted additions made by the AO on account of unexplained unsecured loans and sundry creditors. The AO had made additions totaling Rs. 4,40,06,619/- for unsecured loans and Rs. 92,46,533/- for sundry creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions without providing the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence filed by the assessee, as per Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 30.07.2025Pronounced: 06.10.2025

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →