RAHUL MADHAV GOSWAMI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1478/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2026AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and unreasoned, prejudicing the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds related to additions made under various sections of the Income Tax Act, stating the assessee failed to discharge the onus. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without appreciating submissions and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a reasoned and speaking order. Whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 133(6),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar ( Virtually appeared)
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR AR)
Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1478/MUM/2026 (AY: 2022-23) Rahul Madhav Goswami, B/13, New vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Aayakar Jayshree Apt Pendse Nagar, Road Bhavan, M. K. Road, Central Building, No. 2. Tilaknagar, Thane, Kalyan- Mumbai-400020. 421201. PAN/GIR No: BLJPG6175K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Sachin Kumar ( Virtually appeared) Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR AR) Date of Hearing 11.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of

Income Tax, Appeal-54, Mumbai [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 15.12.2025 for the

assessment year (AY) 2019-20.

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 order passed by the Ld CIT (A), dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

2.

That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), has passed the order u/s 250 of the IT Act without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of "audi alteram partem."

3.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), has passed the order u/s 250 in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts of the case 1

4.

That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT, Mumbai, has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash credits without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant and without appreciating the correct facts of the case.

5.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,05,263/-u/s 69 of the IT Act, on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the submissions made and documentary evidences provided by the appellant during the course of the impugned appellate proceedings

6.

That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,00,785/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained money without appreciating the submissions made and documentary evidences provided by the appellant against the said impugned addition

7.

That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,33,529/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act on account of unexplained expenditure without appreciating the submissions made and documentary evidences provided by the appellant.

8.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,83,000/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained expenditure without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant in this regard and has simply confirmed the said addition by merely concluding that the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the IT Act remained unserved or un responded.

9.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has failed to appreciate the fact that drawing adverse inferences solely on the basis of non responses from the third party to whom the notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act has been issued, is bad in law

10.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,03,431/-u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained expenditure without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant and has dismissed the appeal of the appellant without highlighting any defect in the submissions so made by the appellant during the course of the impugned appellate proceedings

11.

That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in passing the impugned appellate order without verifying the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the same may kindly be treated as void ab initio.

12 That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing a non-speaking order in a mechanical manner, without giving any detailed reasoning for the dismissal of each ground of appeal taken before the CIT(A).

13.

That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing

14.

That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

15.

Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income for

the AY 2022-23 on 24.09.2022 declaring total income of Rs.24,35,990/-. The case

was selected for complete scrutiny. The AO has given the details of the

opportunities granted to the assessee at para 2 and 4.1 of the assessment order.

The content of the notice u/s 142(1) has been reproduced in the assessment

order. While analyzing the synopsis of submission made by the assessee, the AO

found that the assessee had shown net purchases of Rs.89,44,85,674/-. Since the

assessee failed to establish genuineness of such purchases and the source of

funds utilized to procure such purchases, he involved provision of section 69C of

the Act and treated Rs.89,44,85,674/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the

Act at page 25 of assessment order. However, the same was not added in the

computation of taxable income in the assessment order. Similarly, the AO has not added Rs.15,01,024/-, which was considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of

the Act at page 27 of the assessment order. The AO has, however, made various

additions and determined total income at Rs.82.61,988/- as against returned

income of Rs.24,35,980/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) issued 8 notices of hearing u/s 250 of the Act as per the details at para

7.1 of the appellate order. In response to the last notice u/s 250 dated 17.12.2025

the assessee submitted as follows “Appeal filed, waiting for any additional

documents requirement or conclusion of Appeal.” After considering the

submission of the appellant, the CIT(A) dismissed the grounds pertaining to

various additions because the assessee failed to discharge the onus u/ss 68, 69,

69A and 69C of the Act. In the result, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellant.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the

Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant has filed a paper book containing 208 pages

and submitted that the assessee has made various submission and filed relevant

documentary evidences, which were not appreciated by the AO. Before the

CIT(A), the assessee made various compliances, but without appreciating the

submission and documentary evidences of the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the

appeal without pointing out any defects in the submission. The Ld. AR has

enclosed copy of various details and the submission of the assessee before the lower authorities. He has also relied on various decisions in support of the

grounds raised by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellate order

u/s 250 of the Act is a non-speaking order without any reasons or justification for

dismissing the appeal. He therefore, requested that the order of CIT(A) may be

set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

6.

On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of CIT(A). He further

submitted that the AO has not added Rs.89,44,85,674/- u/s 69C and

Rs.15,01,024/- u/s 68 of the Act, though he had arrived at the logical conclusion

in the assessment order. He submitted that if the request of assessee for set aside

is considered, the order may be set aside with cost.

7.

We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We have

also gone through the orders of lower authorities and find that there are various

discrepancies in the orders passed by them. As argued by the Ld. Sr. DR, the AO

has discussed about the unexplained purchase of Rs.89,44,85,674/- in the

assessment order at page 25 but the same was not added to the total income.

Similarly, there is no addition of Rs.15,01,024/- considered as unexplained cash

credit u/s 68 of the Act, to the total income. We also find that the CIT(A) has not

passed a reasoned and speaking order u/s 250 of the Act. Without a speaking

order, the affected parties are prejudiced because they cannot identify specific

grounds for an appeal. It is well settled that the order should speak for itself, by

transforming subjective rulings into objective, transparent determination of the issues involved in the appeal. From perusal of the appellate order u/s 250 of the

Act, we find that the same suffer from the vices of a non-speaking and

unreasoned order. Therefore, without delving further into the matter, we deem it

proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore it to his file for fresh

adjudication subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

Only) to the credit of the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days

from receipt of this order. Subject to such payment, the CIT(A) shall decide the

matter on merits in accordance with law after granting adequate and reasonable

opportunity of being heard of the assessee. The ground is allowed for statistical

purpose.

8.

Since we have set aside the order of CIT(A) and remanded it to his file for

fresh adjudication, the other grounds become academic in nature and do not

require adjudication.

9.

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

Order is pronounced on 08.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 08.06.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)

4.

CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order Assistant 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 →