BHAVIN MANILAL TATARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: B BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.M. DOSS, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6185/MUM/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा/AssessmentYear:2022-23)

BHAVIN MANILAL TATARIA ITO 27(1)(1) 601, SHIV NIWAS, R B MEHTA TOWER NO 6, 3RD FLOOR & MARG, NR VIKRANT CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, VASHI, NAVI RAJAWADI, MUMBAI 400077, Vs. MUMBAI. MUMBAI-400077, MAHARASHTRA NAVI MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थीAppellant प्रत्यथी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ABWPT3767G

अपीलधर्थीद्वारा/Appellant represented by: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CA & Mr. Karan Jain, Adv. (virtual) प्रत्यथीद्वारा/Respondent represented by: Mr. Amit Dua, CIT DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 17-Sep-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 18-Sep-2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 28.03.2026 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

The assessee has taken up the following grounds of appeal: 2.

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the additional evidences filed by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings without admitting the same in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and without calling for OR obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.12,29,17,164/- to the returned income by relying on the incorrect information of CBIC posted on INSIGHT portal by allegedly treating the variation on account of imports made as appearing on INSIGHT portal to that of offered in P & L A/c as unexplained purchase u/s 69C of the Act without assigning valid reason and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 12,01,774/- to the returned income by allegedly treating transfer of goods to its own branch as sales and thereby calculating gross profit on the same without assigning valid reason and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating penalty initiated u/s. 271B of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating penalty initiated u/s. 270A of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating interest charged u/s. 234A/234B/234C/234D of the IT Act and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 7) Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend OR modify any OR all grounds of appeal on OR before the date of hearing.

Ground Nos.1 & 2:

Vide Ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has agitated against the action of 3. the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.12,29,17,164/- made by the Assessing Officer [in short, “the AO”] on account of failure of the assessee to reconcile the figure of imports/purchases made by the assessee. The AO received information that the assessee had made imports/purchases of Rs.19,08,77,028/-, whereas, the assessee had booked total purchases of Rs.6,79,59,864/-. He asked the assessee to reconcile the figures of purchases. Though, the assessee furnished it‟s submissions before the AO as also noted by the AO in the assessment order, however, the AO, without examining the same, held that the assessee had failed to reconcile the figure of purchases and added the differential amount of Rs.12,29,17,164/- into income of the assessee on account of unaccounted imports/purchases. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the AO.

3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Ms. Ridhisha Jain, has submitted that the AO had acted on an incorrect information. She in this respect has relied upon paper book at Page No.17, to submit that the assessee had filed an application under RTI to the Customs Department and as per the information received from them, the total imports of the assessee were Rs.4,01,02,847/-. She has further submitted that the said imports were duly shown in the books of accounts of the assessee and there was no mismatch of the figures. She has submitted that both the lower authorities have failed to look into various details furnished by the assessee.

3.2 At this stage, we asked the Ld.DR that even if it is assumed that there is a mismatch of figures relating to the imports made by the assessee but there was no allegation that such imports were made by the assessee from its undisclosed sources, to which he has been fair enough to admit that these facts have not been examined by the AO. There is a failure on the part of the lower authorities in properly appreciating facts and evidences on the file. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to duly consider the details, explanations and evidences furnished by the assessee and give a clear finding whether there is a mismatch of figures of purchases/imports and further, whether if there is a mismatch found, whether the assessee has been able to explain the source of such purchase, so as to attract the addition on account of purchases from unexplained sources as provided u/s.69C of the Act.

Ground No.3:

Ground Nos.4 to 6: 5. Ground Nos.4 to 6 are against the initiation of penalty u/s.271B, 270A and interest under Sections 234A/234B/234C & 234D of the Act respectively, which are consequential in nature and don‟t require any specific adjudication at this stage.

Ground No.7:

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (G.M. DOSS ) (SANJAY GARG ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 18.09.2026 Copy to: BHAVIN MANILAL TATARIA, 601, SHIV NIWAS, R B MEHTA MARG, NR VIKRANT CIRCLE, RAJAWADI, MUMBAI 1 400077, MUMBAI-400077, MAHARASHTRA ITO 27(1)(1), TOWER NO 6, 3RD FLOOR & 4TH FLOOR, 2 VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI., NAVI MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE