GIRISH CHMANLAL SANGANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-4(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the significant disallowance and the nature of the evidence, decided that the issue requires adjudication with the additional evidence. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 7,63,66,445/- due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) declined to admit additional evidence, citing a lack of proper application under Rule 46A.
What were the issues?
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not admitting additional evidence without a proper application under Rule 46A, and if the disallowance of purchases was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR
आदेश / ORDER
PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2018-19.
ITA No.6 266/MUM/2025 Girish Chimanlal Sangani
Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the AO, vide assessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, disallowed alleged bogus purchases of Rs.7,63,66,445/- from M/s. Moksh Alloy Private Limited, as the Assessee failed to furnish purchase invoices, delivery challans, payment details and other supporting evidence.
The Assessee challenged the disallowance before the Ld. Commissioner and sought to rely upon certain additional evidence. The Ld. Commissioner declined to admit the same, inter alia, on the ground that no proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 had been filed and, in Column No. 12 of Form No. 35, the Assessee had stated that no additional evidence was being filed. Consequently, the disallowance was affirmed.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel referred to the replies dated 12.03.2025 and 08.07.2025 and submitted that the Assessee had sought admission of the additional evidence and remand of the matter for verification. The Ld. Counsel sought one opportunity to file an appropriate application under Rule 46A.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee did not file a proper application under Rule 46A before the Ld. Commissioner. Nevertheless, considering the magnitude of the disallowance of Rs.7,63,66,445/- and the nature of the evidence sought to be produced, we are of the view that the issue requires adjudication after due consideration of the relevant material, subject to the Assessee satisfactorily explaining the earlier non-production thereof.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for
ITA No.6 266/MUM/2025 Girish Chimanlal Sangani
decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the material and submissions placed/to be placed on record. The Assessee shall file an appropriate application under Rule 46A explaining the reasons for non-production of the additional evidence at the earlier stage. The Ld. Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking order.
However, considering the conduct of the Assessee in not prosecuting the proceedings with due diligence, the aforesaid remand shall be subject to deposit of cost of Rs.11,000/- with the Revenue Department under the head “Other Receipts”, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Proof of such deposit shall be furnished before the Ld. Commissioner.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. 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.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Satyavan vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026