MOHD IRFAN ANWAR QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT C C -5(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8784/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2023-247 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee's disability constituted a sufficient cause for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte due to the assessee's physical disability, preventing proper compliance with notices. The CIT(A) confirmed additions under Section 69A and Section 37(1) without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and whether the additions were made without proper consideration of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 37(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, Shri Pravin Salumkhe (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 20/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Deputy Commissioner of Income Room No.A-37, Anwar Chawl, Tax, 4th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Kuttiwadi, Mumbai – 400017, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai – Maharashtra. 400051, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAGPQ 6471 K Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Jeet Kamdar : Shri Pravin Salumkhe (Sr. DR) Revenue by

: 11/05/2026 Date of Hearing : 20/05/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 22.11.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax – 53, Mumbai [in short ‘the learned CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’) 2023-24, raising following grounds:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as it has been passed ex parte, without granting reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi 2 ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025

2.

The CIT(A) falled to consider: 2. The CIT(A) falled to consider: a) Detailed written submissions filed during assessment, and a) Detailed written submissions filed during assessment, and a) Detailed written submissions filed during assessment, and b) Evidences already on record b) Evidences already on record c) violating section 250(6), which mandates a speaking order. c) violating section 250(6), which mandates a speaking order. c) violating section 250(6), which mandates a speaking order. 3. The appellate order mechanically confirms the AD's order without independent order mechanically confirms the AD's order without independent order mechanically confirms the AD's order without independent application of mind. 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 u/s 69A based 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 u/s 69A based 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 u/s 69A based solely on: a) Loose papers found during survey, and a) Loose papers found during survey, and b) Statement of the Appellant's brother b) Statement of the Appellant's brother c) without any corroborative evidence. without any corroborative evidence. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: 5.1 No by-product arises in Appellant's business model. product arises in Appellant's business model. 5.2 The Appellant purchases cleaned and processed omasum; no fat is generated 5.2 The Appellant purchases cleaned and processed omasum; no fat is generated 5.2 The Appellant purchases cleaned and processed omasum; no fat is generated at Appellant's premises. at Appellant's premises. 5.3 Loose papers wer 5.3 Loose papers were not in Appellant's handwriting, nor found from the e not in Appellant's handwriting, nor found from the Appellant's business area, and pertain to AQ Exporter (different entity). Appellant's business area, and pertain to AQ Exporter (different entity). Appellant's business area, and pertain to AQ Exporter (different entity). 5.4 Loose papers are not "books of account", they have no evidentiary value as 5.4 Loose papers are not "books of account", they have no evidentiary value as 5.4 Loose papers are not "books of account", they have no evidentiary value as per settled law. 5.5 Survey statements u/s 133A ha 5.5 Survey statements u/s 133A have no evidentiary value and cannot form sole ve no evidentiary value and cannot form sole basis of addition. 5.6 The AO wrongly shifted burden on the Appellant to disprove survey 5.6 The AO wrongly shifted burden on the Appellant to disprove survey 5.6 The AO wrongly shifted burden on the Appellant to disprove survey statement, whereas the law requires the Revenue to prove contents of loose statement, whereas the law requires the Revenue to prove contents of loose statement, whereas the law requires the Revenue to prove contents of loose sheets. 5.7 No enquiry was conducted: 5.7 No enquiry was conducted: a) With suppliers to establish that fat/by uppliers to establish that fat/by-products were generated at Appellant's products were generated at Appellant's premises. b) To link loose sheets with Appellant's accounts. b) To link loose sheets with Appellant's accounts. c) To show that any money was actually received by Appellant. c) To show that any money was actually received by Appellant. c) To show that any money was actually received by Appellant. d) The estimation of Rs. 1 lakh per month is completely arbitrary and not based d) The estimation of Rs. 1 lakh per month is completely arbi d) The estimation of Rs. 1 lakh per month is completely arbi on any found period, books, stock, or production records. on any found period, books, stock, or production records. 9. The addition u/s 69A fails on both factual and legal grounds and deserves to 9. The addition u/s 69A fails on both factual and legal grounds and deserves to 9. The addition u/s 69A fails on both factual and legal grounds and deserves to be deleted.

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi 3 ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025

10.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ad 10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 without: a) Identifying a single bogus purchase, Identifying a single bogus purchase, b) Rejecting the books u/s 145(3), b) Rejecting the books u/s 145(3), c) Pointing out any quantitative discrepancy c) Pointing out any quantitative discrepancy 11. Without considering the submission & documents Submitted before A.O. like. 11. Without considering the submission & documents Submitted before A.O. like. 11. Without considering the submission & documents Submitted before A.O. like. a) Quantitative stock reconcillation, a) Quantitative stock reconcillation, b) Creditors ledger. c) Cash-book and bank statements, book and bank statements, d) Purchase bills, e) Sample confirmations, e) Sample confirmations, f) Business nature explanation (unorganised slaughterhouse suppliers). f) Business nature explanation (unorganised slaughterhouse suppliers). f) Business nature explanation (unorganised slaughterhouse suppliers). 12.CIT(A) failed to appreciate: 12.CIT(A) failed to appreciate: a) When stock tally is accepted, purchases automatically stand accepted. a) When stock tally is accepted, purchases automatically stand accepted. a) When stock tally is accepted, purchases automatically stand accepted. b) Without rejecting books, no estimation is permissible. ) Without rejecting books, no estimation is permissible. c) Disallowance cannot be made for mere non c) Disallowance cannot be made for mere non-filing of confirinations. filing of confirinations. d) No adverse evidence was collected, no supplier was found bogus, and no d) No adverse evidence was collected, no supplier was found bogus, and no d) No adverse evidence was collected, no supplier was found bogus, and no Investigation was conducted. Investigation was conducted. e) The disallowance is pur e) The disallowance is purely on suspicion, contrary to low, and liable to be ely on suspicion, contrary to low, and liable to be deleted.” 2. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that owing to the physical disability suffered by the submitted that owing to the physical disability suffered by the submitted that owing to the physical disability suffered by the assessee, the notices issued during the appellate proceedings before assessee, the notices issued during the appellate proceedings before assessee, the notices issued during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) could not be properly complied with. In support the learned CIT(A) could not be properly complied with. In suppor the learned CIT(A) could not be properly complied with. In suppor thereof, reliance was placed upon the disability certificate produced thereof, reliance was placed upon the disability certificate produced thereof, reliance was placed upon the disability certificate produced before us. The learned CIT(A) sustained the additions under section before us. The learned CIT(A) sustained the additions under section before us. The learned CIT(A) sustained the additions under section 69A and section 37(1) of the Act primarily on account of non- 69A and section 37(1) of the Act primarily on account of non 69A and section 37(1) of the Act primarily on account of non compliance and absence of further submissions during appellate compliance and absence of further submissions during ap compliance and absence of further submissions during ap proceedings. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“7.1During the course of survey, certain loose documents and note books 7.1During the course of survey, certain loose documents and note books 7.1During the course of survey, certain loose documents and note books maintained by Ifran Iqbal Qureshi, employee of M/s. AQ Exporter were found and maintained by Ifran Iqbal Qureshi, employee of M/s. AQ Exporter were found and maintained by Ifran Iqbal Qureshi, employee of M/s. AQ Exporter were found and

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi 4 ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025

these contain ledger these contain ledger entries of cash income for sale of by-products of offals. On products of offals. On being confronted these ledgers of cash income recovered from Ifran Iqbal Qureshi being confronted these ledgers of cash income recovered from Ifran Iqbal Qureshi being confronted these ledgers of cash income recovered from Ifran Iqbal Qureshi to Shri Javed Anwar Qureshi, he in his statement in reply to question no.29, 30 & to Shri Javed Anwar Qureshi, he in his statement in reply to question no.29, 30 & to Shri Javed Anwar Qureshi, he in his statement in reply to question no.29, 30 & 31 has stated that these documen 31 has stated that these documents contained cash sales details from sale of fat ts contained cash sales details from sale of fat which is a by product of production process and said income is not recorded in which is a by product of production process and said income is not recorded in which is a by product of production process and said income is not recorded in books of accounts and the assessee received Rs.1 lakh of cash sales from sale of books of accounts and the assessee received Rs.1 lakh of cash sales from sale of books of accounts and the assessee received Rs.1 lakh of cash sales from sale of fat every month. The assessee in his reply befo fat every month. The assessee in his reply before the AO has mentioned that re the AO has mentioned that there was no generation of any by there was no generation of any by-products and hence no cash sale of any by products and hence no cash sale of any by- products. Further, the assessee has retracted from his statement given u/s. 133A products. Further, the assessee has retracted from his statement given u/s. 133A products. Further, the assessee has retracted from his statement given u/s. 133A of the IT Act. However, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee as of the IT Act. However, the AO did not accept the contention of the as of the IT Act. However, the AO did not accept the contention of the as the assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to substantiate the the assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to substantiate the the assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the statements were given under coercion/harassment and undue allegation that the statements were given under coercion/harassment and undue allegation that the statements were given under coercion/harassment and undue pressure and hence, the AO stated that retraction/deviation from the statement pressure and hence, the AO stated that retraction/deviation from the statement pressure and hence, the AO stated that retraction/deviation from the statement was after thought. Since, the assessee had not submitted any relevant details in ught. Since, the assessee had not submitted any relevant details in ught. Since, the assessee had not submitted any relevant details in respect of cash sale made by it, the AO has made addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- respect of cash sale made by it, the AO has made addition of Rs. 12,00,000/ respect of cash sale made by it, the AO has made addition of Rs. 12,00,000/ u/s. 69A of the IT Act. u/s. 69A of the IT Act. 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, even after giving multiple 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, even after giving multiple 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, even after giving multiple opportunities, the assessee did not submit any details in respect of addition of , the assessee did not submit any details in respect of addition of , the assessee did not submit any details in respect of addition of Rs. 12,00,000/-u/s. 69A of the IT Act against the cash sale of by u/s. 69A of the IT Act against the cash sale of by u/s. 69A of the IT Act against the cash sale of by-products made by it. From the assessment order, it is seen that certain loose documents were by it. From the assessment order, it is seen that certain loose documents were by it. From the assessment order, it is seen that certain loose documents were found during the course of su found during the course of survey which contain ledger of cash sales against the rvey which contain ledger of cash sales against the sale of by-products. Further, Shri Javed Anwar Qureshi had admitted that these products. Further, Shri Javed Anwar Qureshi had admitted that these products. Further, Shri Javed Anwar Qureshi had admitted that these documents pertain to cash sales from sale of fat which is a by-product of cleaning documents pertain to cash sales from sale of fat which is a by documents pertain to cash sales from sale of fat which is a by of offals. Further, he has also admitted t of offals. Further, he has also admitted that the income from cash sale from by hat the income from cash sale from by- products is not recorded in the books of accounts. Since, nothing has been products is not recorded in the books of accounts. Since, nothing has been products is not recorded in the books of accounts. Since, nothing has been brought contrary to the finding of the AO, addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by brought contrary to the finding of the AO, addition of Rs. 12,00,000/ brought contrary to the finding of the AO, addition of Rs. 12,00,000/ the AO u/s 69A of the IT Act on account of cash sale of by the AO u/s 69A of the IT Act on account of cash sale of by-produ products is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is DISSMISSED. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is 8. Ground No.4 is related to addition of Rs. 5,00,000/ 8. Ground No.4 is related to addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of non on account of non-genuine purchases in cash. 8.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noted that the 8.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noted that the 8.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noted that the assessee has submitted quantitative analysis of stocks, details of sundry submitted quantitative analysis of stocks, details of sundry submitted quantitative analysis of stocks, details of sundry creditors, purchase statements from some parties on sample basis but the creditors, purchase statements from some parties on sample basis but the creditors, purchase statements from some parties on sample basis but the assessee had not provided confirmation from all the purchase parties. Further, assessee had not provided confirmation from all the purchase parties. Further, assessee had not provided confirmation from all the purchase parties. Further, the AO has mentioned that considering the n the AO has mentioned that considering the nature of unorganized industry, ature of unorganized industry, possibility of over billing or non possibility of over billing or non-genuine purchases from the long list of purchase genuine purchases from the long list of purchase parties cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the AO has disallowed an amount of parties cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the AO has disallowed an amount of parties cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the AO has disallowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the total purchases u/s. 37(1) of the IT Act. from the total purchases u/s. 37(1) of the IT Act. from the total purchases u/s. 37(1) of the IT Act. 8.2 During the course of appellate proceedings also, the assessee did not submit .2 During the course of appellate proceedings also, the assessee did not submit .2 During the course of appellate proceedings also, the assessee did not submit any details in respect of disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/ any details in respect of disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. made by the AO u/s. 37(1) of the Act against the non 37(1) of the Act against the non-genuine purchases made by the assessee. Since, genuine purchases made by the assessee. Since, nothing has been bro nothing has been brought contrary to the finding of the AO, disallowance of ught contrary to the finding of the AO, disallowance of

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi 5 ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025

Rs.5,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the IT Act on account of non made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the IT Act on account of non-genuine made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the IT Act on account of non purchases is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is DISMISSED. DISMISSED.” purchases is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is 3. We have heard the rival submissions and caref We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the ully perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has now material available on record. We find that the assessee has now material available on record. We find that the assessee has now produced documentary evidence in the form of a disability produced documentary evidence in the form of a disability produced documentary evidence in the form of a disability certificate explaining the circumstances which prevented effective certificate explaining the circumstances which prevented effective certificate explaining the circumstances which prevented effective representation before the learned CIT(A). In our c representation before the learned CIT(A). In our considered opinion, onsidered opinion, the material placed on record sufficiently demonstrates existence of the material placed on record sufficiently demonstrates existence of the material placed on record sufficiently demonstrates existence of reasonable and sufficient cause which disabled the assessee from reasonable and sufficient cause which disabled the assessee from reasonable and sufficient cause which disabled the assessee from adequately prosecuting the appeal before the first appellate adequately prosecuting the appeal before the first appellate adequately prosecuting the appeal before the first appellate authority.

3.1 It is further evident from It is further evident from the impugned appellate order that the impugned appellate order that the learned CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte without the learned CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte without the learned CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte without the benefit of examining the submissions and evidences which the the benefit of examining the submissions and evidences which the the benefit of examining the submissions and evidences which the assessee now seeks to place on record. The principles of natural assessee now seeks to place on record. The principles of natural assessee now seeks to place on record. The principles of natural justice demand that a li justice demand that a litigant should be afforded adequate and tigant should be afforded adequate and effective opportunity of hearing before any adverse view is taken. effective opportunity of hearing before any adverse view is taken. effective opportunity of hearing before any adverse view is taken. The right of appeal being a substantive statutory right, adjudication The right of appeal being a substantive statutory right, adjudication The right of appeal being a substantive statutory right, adjudication thereof ought to be preceded by fair consideration of the thereof ought to be preceded by fair consideration of the thereof ought to be preceded by fair consideration of the explanation and eviden explanation and evidences furnished by the assessee. ces furnished by the assessee.

3.2 Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, and Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, and Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, and in the larger interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matte restore the entire matter to his file for fresh adjudication in r to his file for fresh adjudication in

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi 6 ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025

accordance with law after granting reasonable and adequate accordance with law after granting reasonable and adequate accordance with law after granting reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after duly considering all opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after duly considering all opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after duly considering all submissions and documentary evidences that may be placed on submissions and documentary evidences that may be placed on submissions and documentary evidences that may be placed on record. The assessee is als record. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and o directed to extend full cooperation and remain diligent in complying with notices and furnishing requisite remain diligent in complying with notices and furnishing requisite remain diligent in complying with notices and furnishing requisite evidences in support of its claims. Accordingly, evidences in support of its claims. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee raised by the assessee is allowed , whereas remaining grounds are , whereas remaining grounds are not required to be adjudicated as matter has been restored to him be adjudicated as matter has been restored to him be adjudicated as matter has been restored to him for deciding afresh.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20 ounced in the open Court on 20/05/2026. /05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/05/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mohd. Irfan Anwar Qureshi 7 ITA No. 8784/MUM/2025

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →