GUNDECHA BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Gundecha Builders, Deputy Commissioner of Income 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S Tax Officer/ National Faceless Phadke Marg, Andheri (East) Vs. Appeal Centre (NFAC) – 24(1), Off, Teli Gali, Maharashtra - Room No.601, Piramal Chambers, 400069. Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAAFG 0848 E Appellant Respondent

ITA No. 8676/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020

Assistant Commissioner of Gundecha Builders, Income Tax Officer – 24(1), 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S Room No.601, 6th Floor, Vs. Phadke Marg, Andheri (East) Off Piramal Chambers, Parel, Teli Gali, Maharashtra - 400069. Mumbai – 400012, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAAFG 0848 E Appellant Respondent

: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A Assessee by : Shri Tamil Selvan - (SR. AR.) Revenue by

: 12/05/2026 Date of Hearing : 18/05/2026 Date of pronouncement

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 2 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These cross appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as These cross appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as These cross appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue, arise out of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Revenue, arise out of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Revenue, arise out of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2020 CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2020-21.

“1. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred 1. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred 1. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the As in confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO under section sessment Order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of Income Tax Act which is passed against the principal of 143(3) r.w.s 144B of Income Tax Act which is passed against the principal of 143(3) r.w.s 144B of Income Tax Act which is passed against the principal of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.42,60,000/- being 12 percent of the interest free advance given to 3 parties being 12 percent of the interest free advance given to 3 parties being 12 percent of the interest free advance given to 3 parties (Rs.50,00,000/- given to Jatin Prakash Gupta, Rs.3,00,00,000/ given to Jatin Prakash Gupta, Rs.3,00,00,000/ given to Jatin Prakash Gupta, Rs.3,00,00,000/- to M.K. Marketing and Rs.5,00,000/ Marketing and Rs.5,00,000/- to Om Prakesh Shukla). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure without has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure without has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure without issuing notice under section 133(6) to the said parties and without allowing an issuing notice under section 133(6) to the said parties and without allowing an issuing notice under section 133(6) to the said parties and without allowing an opportunity to cross examine the sai opportunity to cross examine the said parties.” 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,23,57,281/ CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,23,57,281/ CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,23,57,281/- made under Section 68 r.w.s 115BBE, without a Section 68 r.w.s 115BBE, without appreciating that the assessee failed at the ppreciating that the assessee failed at the assessment stage to discharge the statutory onus of proving identity, assessment stage to discharge the statutory onus of proving identity, assessment stage to discharge the statutory onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, and that both creditors did not comply creditworthiness, and genuineness, and that both creditors did not comply creditworthiness, and genuineness, and that both creditors did not comply with Section 133(6) notices nor were their bank statements produced with Section 133(6) notices nor were their bank statements produced with Section 133(6) notices nor were their bank statements produced before the Assessing Officer. the Assessing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting and placing reliance upon bank statements and CIT(A) has erred in admitting and placing reliance upon bank statements and CIT(A) has erred in admitting and placing reliance upon bank statements and other materials produced for the first time at the appellate stage, without other materials produced for the first time at the appellate stage, without other materials produced for the first time at the appellate stage, without

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 3 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

recording reasons as mandated by Rule 46A(2) and without affording the recording reasons as mandated by Rule 46A(2) and without affording the recording reasons as mandated by Rule 46A(2) and without affording the Assessing Officer a meaningful opportunity to examine and rebut such Assessing Officer a meaningful opportunity to examine and rebut such Assessing Officer a meaningful opportunity to examine and rebut such evidence as required by Rule 46A(3). evidence as required by Rule 46A(3). 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating banking channels, PAN or ITR acknowledgements ) has erred in treating banking channels, PAN or ITR acknowledgements ) has erred in treating banking channels, PAN or ITR acknowledgements and confirmations as determinative for Section 68 without requiring proof of and confirmations as determinative for Section 68 without requiring proof of and confirmations as determinative for Section 68 without requiring proof of the creditors independent financial capacity and an explained origin of funds. the creditors independent financial capacity and an explained origin of funds. the creditors independent financial capacity and an explained origin of funds. The assessee did not furnish a The assessee did not furnish a proximate fund trait free from cash deposits, proximate fund trait free from cash deposits, layering layering or or same same day day rotations. rotations. The The statutory statutory tria iad of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness therefore remained unproved.” creditworthiness and genuineness therefore remained unproved.” creditworthiness and genuineness therefore remained unproved.” 4. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of real Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of real Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development, leasing and allied amenities. For the year ment, leasing and allied amenities. For the year ment, leasing and allied amenities. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.15,76,50,640/ declaring total income of Rs.15,76,50,640/-. The return was . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices issued selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices issued selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices issued under the Income-tax Act tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the , 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] were issued and issued and complied with by the assessee. complied with by the assessee.

4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received unsecured loans Officer noticed that the assessee had received unsecured loans Officer noticed that the assessee had received unsecured loans aggregating to Rs.4,23,57,281/ aggregating to Rs.4,23,57,281/- from two parties, namely Ms. two parties, namely Ms. Ruchika Gundecha and M/s JDA Associates. In response to the Ruchika Gundecha and M/s JDA Associates. In response to the Ruchika Gundecha and M/s JDA Associates. In response to the queries raised under Section 68 of the Act, the assessee queries raised under Section 68 of the Act, the assessee queries raised under Section 68 of the Act, the assessee furnished copies of income furnished copies of income-tax return acknowledgements and tax return acknowledgements and confirmations from the aforesaid parties. However, accor confirmations from the aforesaid parties. However, accor confirmations from the aforesaid parties. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish the the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish the the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish the corresponding bank statements of the creditors and further, the corresponding bank statements of the creditors and further, the corresponding bank statements of the creditors and further, the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to the said parties notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to the said parties notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to the said parties remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the impugned loans as unexplained cash credits under treated the impugned loans as unexplained cash credits under treated the impugned loans as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act.

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 4 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

4.2 The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans aggregating to Rs.3,55,00,000/ free loans aggregating to Rs.3,55,00,000/ free loans aggregating to Rs.3,55,00,000/- to three parties, while simultaneously three parties, while simultaneously incurring substantial interest incurring substantial interest expenditure on borrowed funds. Proceeding on the premise that expenditure on borrowed funds. Proceeding on the premise that expenditure on borrowed funds. Proceeding on the premise that borrowed funds had been diverted for non borrowed funds had been diverted for non-business purposes, business purposes, the Assessing Officer computed proportionate disallowance of the Assessing Officer computed proportionate disallowance of the Assessing Officer computed proportionate disallowance of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on t interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said advances and he said advances and consequently disallowed a sum of Rs.42,60,000/ consequently disallowed a sum of Rs.42,60,000/ consequently disallowed a sum of Rs.42,60,000/- out of the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. interest expenditure claimed by the assessee.

4.3 In appeal, the assessee furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) copies In appeal, the assessee furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) copies In appeal, the assessee furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) copies of the relevant bank statements and supporting documents of the relevant bank statements and supporting documents of the relevant bank statements and supporting documents pertaining to the loan creditors. Upon consideration thereof, the ning to the loan creditors. Upon consideration thereof, the ning to the loan creditors. Upon consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. However, insofar as the disallowance of interest expenditure was However, insofar as the disallowance of interest expenditure was However, insofar as the disallowance of interest expenditure was concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish cer on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish cer on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish that the interest-free advances had been made out of its own free advances had been made out of its own free advances had been made out of its own non-interest-bearing funds available . bearing funds available .

6.3.5 During the assessment proceedings, appellant provided copy of 6.3.5 During the assessment proceedings, appellant provided copy of 6.3.5 During the assessment proceedings, appellant provided copy of ITR acknowledgement, confirmat ITR acknowledgement, confirmation letters but failed to provide relevant ion letters but failed to provide relevant

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 5 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

bank statement of the loan creditors from these 02 parties and in the bank statement of the loan creditors from these 02 parties and in the bank statement of the loan creditors from these 02 parties and in the absence of bank statements, A.O. added total cash credit u/s 68 of the absence of bank statements, A.O. added total cash credit u/s 68 of the absence of bank statements, A.O. added total cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Now, appellant has provided all relevant details including bank Act. Now, appellant has provided all relevant details including bank Act. Now, appellant has provided all relevant details including bank statements of 02 parties which were not provided at the time of tements of 02 parties which were not provided at the time of tements of 02 parties which were not provided at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appellant has discharged assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appellant has discharged assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appellant has discharged burden of proof with regard to the three ingredients, i.e., identity, burden of proof with regard to the three ingredients, i.e., identity, burden of proof with regard to the three ingredients, i.e., identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. In vie creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. In vie creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. In view of the above facts, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section above facts, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section above facts, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Accordingly, the addition of 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Rs.4,23,57,281/ Rs.4,23,57,281/- made u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE is hereby deleted made u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE is hereby deleted and Ground No.2 of appeal raised by appellant is allo and Ground No.2 of appeal raised by appellant is allo and Ground No.2 of appeal raised by appellant is allowed.” 6.1 The principal grievance raised by the learned Departmental he principal grievance raised by the learned Departmental he principal grievance raised by the learned Departmental Representative is that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted and relied upon Representative is that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted and relied upon Representative is that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted and relied upon additional evidences, particularly the bank statements of the additional evidences, particularly the bank statements of the additional evidences, particularly the bank statements of the creditors, without complying with the mandatory procedure creditors, without complying with the mandatory procedure creditors, without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It has cribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It has cribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It has been contended that no effective opportunity was afforded to the been contended that no effective opportunity was afforded to the been contended that no effective opportunity was afforded to the Assessing Officer to examine or rebut such evidences before Assessing Officer to examine or rebut such evidences before Assessing Officer to examine or rebut such evidences before granting relief to the assessee. granting relief to the assessee.

6.2 Per contra, the learned counsel Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee appearing for the assessee submitted that the creditors in question were associated submitted that the creditors in question were associated submitted that the creditors in question were associated concerns and, therefore, the non concerns and, therefore, the non-compliance of notices under compliance of notices under Section 133(6) ought not to have been viewed adversely. It was Section 133(6) ought not to have been viewed adversely. It was Section 133(6) ought not to have been viewed adversely. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer had further contended that the Assessing Officer had not furnished not furnished complete particulars regarding service or compliance status of complete particulars regarding service or compliance status of complete particulars regarding service or compliance status of such notices.

6.3 Having considered the rival submissions and the material Having considered the rival submissions and the material Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, we find merit in the contention advanced on placed on record, we find merit in the contention advanced on placed on record, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the bank state behalf of the Revenue that the bank statements and supporting ments and supporting evidences furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) constituted material evidences furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) constituted material evidences furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) constituted material

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 6 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

documents having substantial bearing on adjudication of the documents having substantial bearing on adjudication of the documents having substantial bearing on adjudication of the issue under Section 68 of the Act. Once such evidences were issue under Section 68 of the Act. Once such evidences were issue under Section 68 of the Act. Once such evidences were admitted at the appellate stage and relied upon for admitted at the appellate stage and relied upon for admitted at the appellate stage and relied upon for deleting the addition, compliance with Rule 46A became obligatory. The addition, compliance with Rule 46A became obligatory. The addition, compliance with Rule 46A became obligatory. The Assessing Officer ought to have been afforded adequate Assessing Officer ought to have been afforded adequate Assessing Officer ought to have been afforded adequate opportunity to examine the evidences and conduct such enquiry opportunity to examine the evidences and conduct such enquiry opportunity to examine the evidences and conduct such enquiry as may have been considered necessary. as may have been considered necessary.

6.4 In our considered opinion In our considered opinion, failure to follow the procedure , failure to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 46A has resulted in violation of contemplated under Rule 46A has resulted in violation of contemplated under Rule 46A has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of fair principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of fair principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of fair adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the findings of adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the findings of adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue an the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of d restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer shall examine the bank statements and other supporting shall examine the bank statements and other supporting shall examine the bank statements and other supporting documents relating to the creditors and thereafter adjudicate the documents relating to the creditors and thereafter adjudicate the documents relating to the creditors and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with issue afresh in accordance with law after affording due law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, Ground opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, Ground opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, Ground Nos.1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for Nos.1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for Nos.1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 7 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

concluded that the advances were attributable to borrowed funds concluded that the advances were attributable to borrowed funds concluded that the advances were attributable to borrowed funds on which interest expenditure had been incurred. on which interest expenditure had been incurred. on which interest expenditure had been incurred. The relevant finding of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced is reproduced as under:

“6.4.1 I have considered the submission made by appe 6.4.1 I have considered the submission made by appellant, assessment order llant, assessment order and all materials available on records. During assessment proceedings, A.O. and all materials available on records. During assessment proceedings, A.O. and all materials available on records. During assessment proceedings, A.O. noticed that appellant had spent Rs.2,17.30,700/ noticed that appellant had spent Rs.2,17.30,700/- in the form of interest in the form of interest expenditure on unsecured loan received during the year and on the other expenditure on unsecured loan received during the year and on the other expenditure on unsecured loan received during the year and on the other hand, appellant had given advance of Rs.6.63,10,000/ llant had given advance of Rs.6.63,10,000/- to 05 different parties to 05 different parties and charged interest on advances from 02 parties only. No interest was and charged interest on advances from 02 parties only. No interest was and charged interest on advances from 02 parties only. No interest was takenby the appellant for advance of Rs.50,00,000/ takenby the appellant for advance of Rs.50,00,000/- given to Jatin Prakash given to Jatin Prakash Gupta, Rs.3,00,00,000/ Gupta, Rs.3,00,00,000/- to M.K. Marketing and Rs.5,00,000/ and Rs.5,00,000/- to Om Prakesh Shukla. Noninterest bearing advance sums up to Rs.3,55,00,000/ Shukla. Noninterest bearing advance sums up to Rs.3,55,00,000/ Shukla. Noninterest bearing advance sums up to Rs.3,55,00,000/-. The appellant contended that advance was given out of the profits earned by it appellant contended that advance was given out of the profits earned by it appellant contended that advance was given out of the profits earned by it having no bearing on the chargeable profit of the year Since, high interest having no bearing on the chargeable profit of the year Since, high interest having no bearing on the chargeable profit of the year Since, high interest expenditure was one of the core reasons for scrutiny in this case and nditure was one of the core reasons for scrutiny in this case and nditure was one of the core reasons for scrutiny in this case and appellant had paid to its loan creditors interest 12% and total of such appellant had paid to its loan creditors interest 12% and total of such appellant had paid to its loan creditors interest 12% and total of such expenditure was shown to be Rs.2,17,30,700/ expenditure was shown to be Rs.2,17,30,700/-, A.O. was correctto apply , A.O. was correctto apply same rate of interest on the quantum of interes same rate of interest on the quantum of interest free advance. Thus, t free advance. Thus, disallowance made by the A.O. @12% of total interest free advance of disallowance made by the A.O. @12% of total interest free advance of disallowance made by the A.O. @12% of total interest free advance of Rs.3,55,00,000/- which worked out to Rs.42,60,000/ which worked out to Rs.42,60,000/- is correct. is correct. 6.4.2 The appellant could not demonstrate how interest 6.4.2 The appellant could not demonstrate how interest-free own funds were free own funds were used to loan given to thes used to loan given to these 03 parties, thus the advances are made out of only e 03 parties, thus the advances are made out of only borrowed funds on which interest @12% was paid by the appellant. Hence, borrowed funds on which interest @12% was paid by the appellant. Hence, borrowed funds on which interest @12% was paid by the appellant. Hence, addition made by the A.O. on account of proportionate interest disallowances addition made by the A.O. on account of proportionate interest disallowances addition made by the A.O. on account of proportionate interest disallowances of Rs.42,60,000/- is upheld and Ground No. 3 raised by is upheld and Ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 7.1 The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that sufficient The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that sufficient The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that sufficient material had already been placed before the lower authorities material had already been placed before the lower authorities material had already been placed before the lower authorities demonstrating availability of adequate own funds and that the demonstrating availability of adequate own funds and that the demonstrating availability of adequate own funds and that the advances in question had not been sourced out of borrowed advances in question had not been sourced out of borrowed advances in question had not been sourced out of borrowed funds. It was further submitted that, if required, the assessee is as further submitted that, if required, the assessee is as further submitted that, if required, the assessee is prepared to furnish all supporting evidences afresh before the prepared to furnish all supporting evidences afresh before the prepared to furnish all supporting evidences afresh before the Assessing Officer.

7.2 Having regard to the submissions advanced before us and Having regard to the submissions advanced before us and Having regard to the submissions advanced before us and considering that the issue requires factual verification regarding considering that the issue requires factual verification regarding considering that the issue requires factual verification regarding

ITA No. ITA No. 8442/MUM/2025 & 8 ITA ITA No.8676/MUM/2025 Gundecha Builders,

availability and utilisation of own funds, we are of the considered availability and utilisation of own funds, we are of the considered availability and utilisation of own funds, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee shall be at ssessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee shall be at ssessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee shall be at liberty liberty liberty to to to place place place on on on record record record all all all documentary documentary documentary evidences evidences evidences demonstrating availability of sufficient non demonstrating availability of sufficient non-interest interest-bearing funds and the source from which the advances were made. The funds and the source from which the advances were made. The funds and the source from which the advances were made. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in r shall thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in r shall thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. hearing to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 18 18/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM 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. 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