MOHD. SHAFI HABIB HUNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(2)(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a similar appeal had already been filed and was pending. Consequently, the current appeal was deemed infructuous and allowed to be withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC/CIT(A) for AY 2013-2014. The assessee later realized they had filed a duplicate appeal and requested to withdraw the current appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is a duplicate and can be withdrawn. The substantive grounds of appeal relate to additions made on account of alleged undisclosed sales, cash deposits, bank deposits, and differences in accounts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6044/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 MOHD. SHAFI HABIB Income Tax Officer, HUNANI Ward 17(2)(3)
11B/120, Lucky Building, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan M.K. Marg, Ghogahari Mohalla, new marine lines, Mumbai - 400003 Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra Maharashtra PAN- AEYPM5137J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Letter dated: 07.09.2026 Revenue Represented by : Shri S. Giridharan SR. DR Date of Hearing : 07.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2026 O R D E R PER : Shri Rakesh Kumar Lodha, Accountant Member: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against an order dated 25-03-2026, by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) /Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld.
ITA NO.6044-MUM-2026 MOHD. SHAFI HABIB HUNANI AY-2013-2014 Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(in short ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2013-2014.
The Assessing Officer has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Failure of Equity and Justice:
A) The Ld. Lower authorities (both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)) erred on facts and merits to determine subjectively a high- pitched assessed income at Rs. 2,14,80,690/- as against the declared income of Rs. 10,00,230/-; therefore, the Order impugned may be vacated for want of due justice.
B) Without prejudice to merits, not all credits to Bank A/cs do attract revenue recognition to tax and as presumptions have no role in assessment, the additions out of guesswork may be deleted.
Addition on account of alleged undisclosed sales Rs. 49,30,155/-
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the difference in Bank A/cs and turnover as alleged undisclosed sales ignoring the facts that every deposit into bank account doesn’t have the character of revenue nature; therefore, the addition may be deleted.
Addition on account of alleged cash deposit Rs. 4,25,000/-
i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the deposits doesn’t have revenue impact; therefore, no addition in the hands of the Appellant is called for since the Appellant’s deposits have no Revenue implication.
ITA NO.6044-MUM-2026 MOHD. SHAFI HABIB HUNANI AY-2013-2014 ii) Without prejudice to above, Income Tax Laws do not recognize and permit double taxation of any amount.
Addition due to difference in account- Rs. 35,66,692/-
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions arising due to differences in accounts without appreciating that the said difference do not assume Revenue character for taxability such as:
Difference Bank A/c. -Rs.31,33,238/- Traveling expenses -Rs. 4,000/- Food expenses -Rs. 4,29,454/-
Addition on account of alleged undisclosed bank receipt- Rs. 1,15,57,026/-
i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Bank deposits as alleged unaccounted receipts/income without appreciating that the same are not unaccounted receipts and not all deposits are of revenue nature for taxation; therefore, the same may be deleted.
ii) Without prejudice to above, no double taxation of same receipts is permitted under Tax Laws.
Addition on account of interest A/c.- Rs. 1,489/-
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the difference in interest credit as alleged escaped credit without appreciating that the alleged difference could be reconcilable; therefore, no addition is called for.
Levy of Penal Interest
On merits, the Appellant denies his liability to penal interests.
ITA NO.6044-MUM-2026 MOHD. SHAFI HABIB HUNANI AY-2013-2014 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the above Grounds of Appeal.
Before proceeding with the hearing of the appeal, we find that Assessee filed a letter dated 07-09-2026, stating that, by mistake, the present appeal was uploaded twice. However, another appeal against same order bearing ITA No. 5947/MUM/2026 is already filed for the assessment year 2013-14 and fixed for hearing on 29/10/2026. Therefore, the Assessee requested to allow to withdraw the impugned appeal ITA No. 6044/MUM/2026, being duplicate.
We have gone through the details furnished before us and find that the Assessee has uploaded two appeals against the order under Section 250 of the Act, dated 25 March 2026, the first appeal ITA No. 5947/MUM/2026, which has already been fixed for hearing and adjourned to 29th October, 2026.
Hence, the present appeal ITA No. 6044/MUM/2026, becomes infructuous, and the Assessee is allowed to withdraw the appeal.
ITA NO.6044-MUM-2026 MOHD. SHAFI HABIB HUNANI AY-2013-2014
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (RAKESH KUMAR LODHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 22.09.2026. Sharath, Private Secretary. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026