MISHREE LAL JINDAL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEAL) , MUMBAI

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred as "Ld. CIT(A)"] for A.Y. 2008-09, arising out of the assessment proceedings framed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

The assessee in this appeal has raised following grounds:-

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,11,130/-. The assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed making additions of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of Rs.6,556/- and unexplained investment u/s 69B of Rs.71,89,782/-. On appeal, the Hon’ble ITAT vide ITA No.3611/Mum/2015 dated 25.05.2016 restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 254 again made the addition of Rs.6,556/- u/s 69A and Rs.71,89,782/- u/s 69B. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after discussing the facts of another case where addition of Rs.89,00,000/- u/s 68 and addition of Rs.1,33,500/- u/s 69C totalling to Rs.90,35,930/- was made. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR), at the outset, has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in para 7 has discussed the facts of some other case where search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of Shri Kailash Kumar Patwari who was entry operator and based on which addition of Rs.89,00,000/- was made. The Ld. AR submitted that this case as the facts has no co-relation with the

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not contravene the submissions of the Ld. AR.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) in para 7 has discussed the addition of Rs.89,00,000/- made u/s 69 which is not the facts in the present case. It is a case where Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the assessment order and dismissed the appeal on facts of some other case. We therefore set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct to pass the order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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