PUNYA TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD - 5 (2) (1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“the learned CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], arising from the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with sections 143(3) and 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2016- 17.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 23,993. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee was a beneficiary of loans and advances of Rs. 34,72,887 each in relation to Shri Rajesh L. Patel and Shri Piyush L. Patel. As the details called for by the Assessing Officer were not furnished, the aggregate amount of Rs. 69,45,774 was treated as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 69,45,770. The learned CIT(A) sustained the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned Authorised Representative drew our attention to the impugned order and submitted that the learned CIT(A) had reproduced therein the submissions and facts relating to another case. He, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the correct facts of the assessee's case.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the impugned appellate order contains facts and submissions which have no connection with the present appeal. 2

These discrepancies go to the root of the appellate proceedings and demonstrate that the grounds, submissions and facts of the present case have not been considered in their correct perspective. Section 250(6) of the Act requires the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. An order based partly on facts and submissions of another case cannot satisfy this statutory requirement.

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall examine the grounds of appeal and the material filed by the assessee on the correct facts of the present case and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all supporting evidence and to cooperate in the appellate proceedings. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.