JIGAR PRAFULL GHOGHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,

[for short “CIT(A)”] dated 23.12.2025, for the assessment year 2010-11.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1.The Appeal has been filed for AY 2010-2011. The Appeal Proceedings for AY 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 are also going simultaneously. However, while passing the order of A Y 2010- 2011 the CIT(Appeals) has mistakenly pass the order keeping in view of the Assessment order of 2011-2012. The CIT (Appeals) has not considered any of the Ground of Appeal or any additional ground filed later. In view of the same the Order passed by the CIT (Appeal) is bad in Law. Further, a rectification order has been passed by CIT (Appeal) on Dated 15-01-2026, stating that we had uploaded Form 35 and Assessment order of AY 2011-2012, instead of AY 2010-2011, Due to which error was done while uploading the Appeal Order by the Department. While in fact we had filed form 35 and Assessment order of AY 2010-2011 correctly. Hence reason given for Rectification are not borne by actual facts.

The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in treating the unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,57,35,494 received from various parties as unexplained income under section 68. The appellant submits that complete details, confirmations, PAN, and bank statements of lenders were available and verifiable. The AO has made the addition merely on suspicion without proper enquiry. The addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted.

on 10.06.2026. Hence, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the

basis of the submissionof the Learned Senior Departmental Representative

(‘Ld. Sr. DR’) for the revenue and the material available on record.

the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the fact for A.Y. 2011-12. As per the ground

of appeal, such mistake was due to the fact that the assessee himself has

furnished fact relating to other years. Therefore, the matter may be

restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to the assessee to

furnish relevant facts relating to A.Y.2010-11 along with submission and

evidence thereof.

perused the record. We find that, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) while passing

the Assessment Order made an addition under Section 69A of Rs. 1.68

Crores on account of unexplained money. We find that in paragraph 3 of

the order of the Ld.CIT(A), he has considered the fact for A.Y. 2011-12.

Wherein, the addition was made on account of sale of shares of penny

scrip namelyGemstones Investment Ltd, which is not the subject matter in

AY 2010-11. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) considered the fact for different

assessment years.Hence, the matter is restored back to the file of the

Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to the assessee to furnish correct statement of

the fact for A.Y. 2010-11 along with submission to substantiate the credit in

the bank account and relevant evidence to substantiate such credit.

Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the ld CIT(A) shall

allowed opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With these directions, the

grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 30.06.2026 at the time of hearing.

S Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 03/07/2026 Aditi Pandare, Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, Aditi Pandare, PS PS PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai