INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAZALA HASSAN CHARIYARI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFOREHON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT&SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.2453/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer 8(2)(1) Gazala Hassan Chariyari Room No. 209, Aayakar Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil Bhawan, M K Road, Mumbai 124 MES Marg, Zanda Gallo of Maharashtra- 400003 Vs. Memonwada Road, Mumbai Maharashtra- 400003 PAN: AAEPC3430G Revenue- अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee-प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Rajesh C Dali – Adv. Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary - Sr. AR. : 03.02.2026 Date of Hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: 1. This captioned appeal is preferred by the revenue, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 14.02.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15,which in turn arises from the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 18.05.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. Grounds of appeal are as under: i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition in

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari respect of Hawala Income Rs. 7,00,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not offered any income for taxation on such transactions, since, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition in respect of investment in house and income therefrom Rs. 1,56,00,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not explained the source of such purchases and also not offered any income from house property for taxation since, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15?

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari 1,56,00,000/-. Consequently, the assessed income of assessee has been determined at Rs. 8,56,00,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority.The submissions and clarifications furnished by the assessee are found satisfactory by the Ld. CIT (A), therefore, the additions made by AO are directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 4. Being dissatisfied with the observations of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue felt aggrieved and, therefore, have filed the present appeal. 5. At the outset, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) representing the revenue submitted that the information regarding the bogus transactions and Hawala operations are on the insight portal which are discussed by the AO in his order in detail wherein the assessee has not made any submissions nor have filed any reply. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on best judgment basis as per the provisions of Section 144 of the Act, therefore, the order of Ld. AO needs to be sustained and the additions made therein deserves to be upheld. It is also submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the various documents and clarifications which are furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) are not referred to the Ld. AO for calling a remand report qua such information, therefore, there was a clear violation of Rule 46A by the Ld. CIT(A),his order therefore is liable to be set aside. Page 3 of 9

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari 6. Ld. Authorized Representative (in short „AR‟) on behalf of assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the issues raised in present appeal for the AY 2014-15 were identically raised for AY 2015-16 also, wherein the same issues were decided in favor of the assessee.The additions therefore cannot survive, as the same are in consistent with the other year. Regarding ground No. 1 of the department pertaining to addition for Hawala transaction amounting to Rs. 7,00,00,000/-. It is submitted that the identical transactions of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- undertaken by the assessee during AY 2014-15, AY (2015-16) were examined by the AO and had not drawn any adverse inference. Similarly, the other issue regarding income from house was also dropped without any adverse inference. 7. Based on the aforesaid findings of assessment year 2015-16, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) have decided the issue in favour of assessee by observing as under:- 9.2 The submission made by the appellant is considered. On perusal of the records it is seen that during the assessment proceedings AY 2015-16 the AO had re-opened the case for the same reason. While completing the assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 verification and submission made by the appellant the AO has not made the addition on the re-opening reason. The relevant extract of the said order is as below:-

In response thereto, the assessee has filed her reply vide letter dated 09.05.2023. The assessee has also sought personal hearing through Video conference. The personal hearing through video conference was fixed on 11.05.2023. Vide submissions dated 09.05.2023, the assessee has raised Page 4 of 9

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari some legal objections. Further, the assessee has furnished the copy of certificate of registration of private tour operators for HAJ-2014 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, ledger account of salary payable, copy of purchase deed of Flat No.404 A/22 in Al-Makkah Building. Vide her submissions the assessee has submitted that the assesse has not conducted the Haj Tour in personal capacity. The assessee has further submitted that the Haj Tour was conducted by M/s Sky Ship International Pvt. Ltd and Haj Income was also shown by the company. Further, Haj tour can be conducted only after approval of Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs gives approval to each and every private tour operator and the ministry gives specific ceiling as to how many pilgrims each private tour operator can take for Haj. M/s Sky Ship International Pvt. Ltd has undertaken Haj Tour in FY 2015-16 and details were provided during the assessment of M/s Sky Ship International Pvt. Ltd. During the F. Y. 2015-16, M/s Skyship International Pvt. Ltd has received permission from Ministry of External Affairs to carry only 108 pilgrims to do Haj in Saudi Arabia. Regarding M/s Millat Haj Tours and Travels, the assessee has submitted that M/s Millat Haj Tours and Travels is engaged in the business of Haj and Umrah Tour Services and Ticket Bookings. M/s Sky Ship International Pvt Ltd has business relationship with M/s Millat Haj Tours and Travels since both are in the same business line. The owner of M/s Millat Haj Tours and Travels is Mr Kamaluddin Shaikh. The assessee has submitted that M/s Millat Haj Tours and Travels is not their business. The owner of M/s Millat Haj Tours and Travels is neither the relative nor the employee of the company. The reply of the assessee has been considered. It is seen from copy of certificate issued by the Ministry of External Affairs that the M/s SKYSHIP INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD was registered with MEA and it was allowed quota of 108 pilgrims. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act was issued to SKYSHIP INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD on 17.02.2023. The company SKYSHIP INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD has furnished its reply vide communication on 18.04.2023. The company has provided the copy of bank statement, details of bank accounts, copies of ITR, Bank Book. The company has submitted that it is Page 5 of 9

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari engaged in business of Haj and Umrah Tour Services, manpower recruitment and also Visa Services. From the submissions of the company, it is seen that the assessee is a Director and received salary of Rs.13,00,000/- during the year. The relevant extract is pasted below:

Considering submissions of the assessee, documents and details furnished by the M/s SKYSHIP INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, no adverse inference is drawn in the case of assessee.

3.2 Issue: Annual Rent on Flat No. 403, A/22 in Al-Makkah Building in the name of her daughter Ana Hasan Cheriyari amounting to Rs.1,45,00,000/- and the same has been given on rent by the assessee. The daughter of the assessee Ana Hassan Cheriyari is studying in Pune and does not have any source of income. Vide notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked to furnish certain details on the issue. A show-cause Notice dated 09.05.2023 was also issued to the assessee. In response to the Notices, the assessee has furnished her reply vide letter dated 08.05.2023 and 09.05.2023. The assessee has submitted that she had not purchased any such property. The reply of the assessee has been considered. During the course of assessment proceedings, a Notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act was issued on 17.02.2023 to the JOINT SUB REGISTRAR(MSD) ANDHERI 4. A reference was also made to Verification Unit to obtain the copy of purchase deeds from the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar has provided a copy of deed registered of Flat No.404, 4th Floor, Building No.-A/22, Al-Makkah Co-operative Housing Society limited on 29.12.2015 at consideration of Rs.94,09,000/-. As the property was purchased in F.Y.2015-16 relevant to A.Y.2016-17, no variation is proposed on this account during A.Y.2015-16. However, the information is being shared with JAO on the issue. Regarding Flat No.403, A/22 in Al-Makkah Page 6 of 9

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari Building, a reference was sent to Verification Unit. The Verification Unit has furnished its response for the proceedings for A.Y. 2017-18 vide which it has shared the screen-shot of the reply of as under:

Considering reply of the assessee, material available on record, no adverse view is taken on this account. 9.3 Based on the above submission made by the appellant and assessment order passed by the AO for AY 2015-16, AO is directed to delete the following addition made in the assessment order for AY 2014-15 (a) Variation in respect of Hawala Income- Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (b) Variation in respect of investment in house and income there from- Rs. 1,56,00,000/- Accordingly grounds of appeal no. 03 to 06 raised by the appellant is allowed.

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari passed by Ld. CIT(A) was based on revenues decision in assessee‟s case for AY 2015-16, therefore, the additions made in current year cannot sustain. 9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the assessment order of assessee of AY 2015- 16. Admittedly, the issue of Hawala has been examined in detail by the AO in next year and have not preferred to make any adverse inference on the issue. Therefore, in absence of any facts, contrary to the facts of AY 2015-16 in the instant year, no addition on this count is called for. Regarding the house purchased by the assessee, the identical issue for same house was raised in AY 2015-16, which has been considered as fully explained by the assessee and no adverse view has been drawn by the AO. Therefore, the issue which is for the same transaction, which has been picked for AY 2015-16, cannot be the basis for any inquiry for AY 2014-15 also. We find substance in the observations of AO for AY 2015-16, which led the Ld. CIT(A) to arrive at a conclusion that the issue raised in current year are not having any substance to draw any adverse inference to make additions in the hands of assessee. We, thus, do not find any adversity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), so far so as to interfere with the same. In the result, the appeal of revenue being bereft of merits, needs to be rejected, and we do so.

Page 8 of 9

ITA No. 2453/Mum/2025 Gazala Hassan Chariyari

Order pronounced in the open court on 30 -04-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG (ARUN KHODPIA) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 30-04-2026. Zu, PS

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

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

Page 9 of 9