DIMPLE SANGHVI,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8267/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary documentation, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 17,10,000/-. The Assessing Officer made additions ex parte, and the CIT(A) sustained a portion of the addition due to non-submission of certain documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unsecured loans was justified when the assessee claimed to have provided sufficient evidence, and whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without considering additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Viren Shah (Virtually Present)
For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.08.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.8267/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dimple Sanghvi Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) Vs. 10/1, South Tukoganj, Indore, National Faceless Appeal Centre Madhya Pradesh-452001 (NFAC), Delhi-110001 PAN: ARFPJ8460M Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Viren Shah (Virtually Present) Revenue by : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR : 20.08.2026 Date of Hearing : 31.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 25.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, arises from the assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 18.12.2018, passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(4), Mumbai [in short,“the Ld.AO”].

ITA No. 8267/Mum/2025 Dimple Sanghvi 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of unsecured loans amounting to 17.10,000/- received from the following persons: o Samirmal Sanghvi HUF-4,60,000/- o Pankaj Sanghvi HUF - ₹7,50,000/- o Pushpa Neema -₹2,00,000/- o Ajeet Gangwal-1,00,000/- o Manish Kothari 1,00,000/- o Kamal Kumar Kothari - ₹1,00,000/- without properly appreciating the evidence furnished by the appellant. 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly established the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions, by furnishing PAN, ITRs, confirmations, bank statements and loan agreements, and therefore the addition u/s 68 is unjustified, illegal and deserves to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the loans are unexplained, ignoring the fact that all transactions were received through proper banking channels and the lenders had confirmed the loans. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in drawing adverse inferences without providing any opportunity of cross-examination or calling for any further documents, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition merely on suspicion, conjecture and surmises, without bringing any adverse material on record to disprove the documentary evidences filed by the appellant. 6. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once the assessee has discharged the initial onus under section 68, the burden shifts to the department, which has not been discharged by bringing any contrary evidence. 7. That the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of 17,10,000/- is bad in law, contrary to facts and liable to be quashed. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in the present matter, the Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs.17,01,750/- on the premise of 2

ITA No. 8267/Mum/2025 Dimple Sanghvi unexplained investments. The issue pertains to purchase of residential house property in Indore, MP, wherein the assessee was also co-owner for 25% having share of Rs.54,51,750/-. The assessee has availed a loan of Rs.1.5 crores along with the co-owners, therefore, the assessee’s loan was Rs.37.50 lakhs. Further, the assessee has availed unsecured loans of Rs.17.10 lakhs.

4.

In this case, the assessment was passed on ex parte basis u/s 144 wherein the total addition made by the Ld. AO aggregating to Rs.27,77,07,020/-. Further, the assessee raised the issue before the First Appellate Authority wherein the assessee provided details of the parties from whom the unsecured loans were availed and Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition of Rs.17,01,750/- due to non- submission of bank statements and ITRs of the lenders from whom the assessee has availed the unsecured loans.

5.

It is submitted that the assessee has submitted all the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A), however certain information which was not available with the assessee are not now ready to be furnished, the same are placed before the Tribunal in the form of additional evidence along with affidavit for submission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

6.

It was therefore, the prayer that the matter may be restored back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the addition which is sustained in absence of certain documents which the assessee now undertakes to furnish, which are 3

ITA No. 8267/Mum/2025 Dimple Sanghvi necessary for adjudication of addition u/s 69 in the present case. Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following decisions:  Mascon Global Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 37 SOT 202 (Chennai) (TM)  Mrs. Manisha Bipin Bhinsara vs. ITO [2017] 85 taxmann.com 228 (Jurisdictional Mumbai Trib.)  ITO vs. Mahendra P. Mehta [2011] 9 taxmann.com 34 (Jurisdictional Mumbai Trib.)  Mumbai Cricket Association vs. CIT(Exemption) (ITA No.1257/Mum/2025, dated 4 December 2025) (Jurisdictional Mumbai Trib.)  Rajmoti Industries vs. ITO [1995] 52 ITD 286 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)  Abhay Kumar Shroff vs. ITO [1997] 63 ITD 144 (PAT.) (TM)

7.

Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of Revenue Authorities, however has not objected to the request of assessee to set aside the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

8.

In backdrop of the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of facts on record, we find it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in terms of assessee’s request to furnish the necessary documentation, which earlier could not be furnished in absence of such documents in her possession. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issues / additions which were sustained by him.

ITA No. 8267/Mum/2025 Dimple Sanghvi 9. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the setaside appellate proceedings. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and pro-actively assist in the set aside appellate proceedings, failing which the appellate authority would be at liberty to decide the appeal in accordance with the mandate of law, with no further opportunities.

10.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 31-08-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →