M/S. MUKTI CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal emanating from the appellate order dated 15.12.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 27.02.2025 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23.

ITA No. 1495/Mum/2026; M/s Mukti Construction “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the appeal on 15/12/2025 without considering the adjournment request filed by the appellant on 08/12/2025. Such action of the Ld. CIT(A) is completely against the principles of natural justice and grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in an arbitrary manner without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose the appeal on merits even in absence of the appellant. Thus, dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in issuing notice u/s 148 and completing the assessment and passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is wholly unreasonable, invalid, illegal and bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by not conducting inquiry proceedings u/s 148A as well as assessment proceedings u/s 148 in faceless manner by FAO. The appellant relies on thedecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd vs. ACIT, [[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the demand notice u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was signed by the Ld. A.O. on 27/02/2025 at 15:18:46 Hours i.e. before signing the computation sheet of the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27/02/2025 at 15:18:49 Hours. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O has erred by making additions of Rs. 4,95,00,000/- in respect of transaction mentioned in the dairy/notebook found from the premises of the appellant's group by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case and with a preset mind of making additions on an assumption and presumption basis. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by making the addition in respect of cash transaction mentioned in the seized diary without finding of any incriminating material or corroborative evidences to support the transaction mentioned the diary at the time of survey from the premises of the appellant's group. In absence of any corroborative evidences to support the transaction mentioned in the diary, the diary is just a dump document. The appellant relies on the judgment given in the matter of DCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 168 taxmann.com 77 (SC) and ACIT Vs. ShankerNebhumalUttamchandani [2024] 161taxmann.com 536 (Surat-Trib.) and Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 SC

ITA No. 1495/Mum/2026; M/s Mukti Construction 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred. by solely relied upon the statement taken at the time of survey ignoring the fact and submission of the appellant that statement on which the Ld. AO relied upon was already retracted by the concerned persons of the appellant group. No addition maintainable if made solely on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey. The appellant relied upon the judgement given by the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in the matter of Rohitaswa Das vs. ACIT [ITA No. 1949/Kol/2017]. 9. The Ld. AO has erred while relying on the statement given u/s 131 at the time of survey proceedings carried out u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which have no evidentiary value in eyes of law. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act it is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the Ld. AO is not Authorised to administer on oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law. The appellant relies on the judgment given in the matter Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC) and Paul Mathews and Sons (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and CIT Vs. S. Khadarkhan Son, 300 ITR 157 (Mad.).” 10. The Ld. A.O. has wrongly added "000" to the some of the figures written in the seized diary found from the premises of the appellant merely on assumptions basis. The amount written in the seized materials must be read as toto. The addition so made is without any justification and must be deleted. 11. The Ld. A.O. has made the additions totally in mechanical manner without application of mind, with his own permutation and combination and assumption and presumption basis without considering the facts of the case & submissions made by the appellant on record during the course of assessment proceedings.” 3. In this case, the asseesee engaged in real estate business filed return of income of Rs 12,08,150/-.Based on certain information emanating from a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act conducted in the case of Lotus Infra Solutions on 23.11.2022, it was found that the assessee was also operating from the same premises. It was revealed from incriminating documents revealed cash payments received it from the construction activity over and above cheque payments by customers. Total amount of Rs 4.94 cr. was found to have been received by it which was not found disclosed in the books of

ITA No. 1495/Mum/2026; M/s Mukti Construction activity. In absence of any satisfactory reply, this amount was added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the returned income. In the subsequent appeal, as stated in the appellate order, there was no compliance to various notices issued by him. Consequently, the addition made was upheld.

ITA No. 1495/Mum/2026; M/s Mukti Construction fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities.

6.1As the ld. AR has requested before us that the assessee shall be given one more opportunity and this request which was not objected by the ld.DR, in such a scenario, we are of the opinion that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be verified and revisited at the level of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to his file for de novo adjudication by him while applying the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SAKTIJIT DEY PRABHASH SHANKAR (उपाध्यक्ष/ VICE PRESIDENT) (लेखाकारसदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 04.06.2026 Soumili Das / PS

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, 5

ITA No. 1495/Mum/2026; M/s Mukti Construction Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT