KETAN SURESH GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(4), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “K(SMC
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Ketan Suresh Gandhi 121-B, 7-Dwarka Building Park Road, Near Shivsena Office, Parle East Mumbai-400 057. Vs. ACIT, CC 5(4) Room No. 436 Kautilya Bhavan BKC, Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. PAN : ALEPG6106E
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
The appellant in this case, raised the following grounds of appeal :-
(A) ADDITION U/S. 69A OF THE IT ACT - Rs. 14,81,056
1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 53, Mumbai
(hereinafter referred to as "CITA") erred in confirming the addition made by learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai
("AO") to the extent of Rs. 14,81,056/- holding that the same amounted to unexplained money;
The learned CITA failed to appreciate that the amounts were duly offered to tax and therefore, the same could not be regarded as unexplained;
The appellant prays that your honours hold provisions of section 69A to be inapplicable in the case of appellant and therefore, delete the entire addition made.
From the assessment order, it is observed that the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that the appellant is not eligible to avail provisions of section 44AD of the I.T. Act, presumptive taxation because the records, fund flow and transaction flow carried out by appellant shows that he created a bogus sub-contract and tried to give a colour of genuineness. Finally, the entire gross receipts were taxed.
Ketan Suresh Gandhi
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, an appeal was filed by the appellant before Ld. CIT(A). This first appellate authority gave four opportunities and since there is no response, the addition made by the Ld. AO was confirmed.
The appellant filed an appeal before ITAT with the above grounds. The Ld. AR of the appellant stated that the father of appellant was not well during the period of two months and filed evidence by way of medical records for the same. It was requested that he may be given one more opportunity to argue his case before Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. DR opposed the plea of Ld. AR.
Heard both sides. Within a span of two months, 4 opportunities were given to appellant and since the appellant filed some evidence to show that his father is not well, the Bench decides to given one more opportunity to appellant before Ld. CIT(A). accordingly, the appeal is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/09/2025. (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(