NEHA M CHANDWANI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, 41(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. VEGANESHAN NADAR, MULUND (WEST), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 886/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Neha M Chandwani, Income Veganeshan Nadar Tax Officer, 41(2)(5) Shop No. 1 Shiv Ganga Room No.845, 8thFloor, vs. Apartment, S. L. Road, Mulund Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, West, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Bandra Kurla Complex, 400080. Bandra (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400051. PAN:ACAPN4506E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ravi Nayak, CA For Revenue : Ms. Tsering Majumder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 12.11.2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.2,41,07,217/- on account of estimated net profit stating that the assessee has filed the quantitative details with purchases and sales (which are non verifiable excel sheets without any basis or documentary evidence to back the said excel sheets) without remanding the case to the AO for re-verification. 2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.2,41,07,217/-

ITA No. 886/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Veganeshan Nadar without verifying the purchase bill/sales bill/ stock register required to be submitted before the assessing officer. 3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in violating the Rule 46A by not providing opportunity to the assessing officer to verify the one page quantitative details submitted before Ld.CIT(A).” 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme and thereafter, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for the necessary information and documentation. However, there was no compliance by the assessee inspite of sufficient opportunity. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer recorded his finding stating that in absence of the details of the opening stock, closing stock, purchases and sales and the mismatch in the reporting in the financial statements as well as in the return of income and given the fact that the assessee has declared the lower net profit percentage as compared to the industry standard, the books of accounts were not reliable and were rejected and net profit rate @2% on the declared turnover was estimated at Rs. 3,42,49,247/- and after allowing the benefit of the declared net profit, an addition of Rs. 2,41,07,217/- was made in the hands of the assessee and assessed income was determined at Rs. 3,42,86,770/-.

ITA No. 886/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Veganeshan Nadar the rejection of the books of accounts and the order has been passed in a complete summarily manner, without any specific findings and is thus a non-speaking order. In light of the same, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, by way of speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Order pronounced on 13.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- PAWAN SINGH VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 13.07.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai