HEERA SIDDHI HOMES LLP,SANPADA NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(1)(5), VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3020/MUM/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2017-18) INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(1)(5) HEERA SIDDHI HOMES LLP TOWER NO.6,VASHI 186 SHREE DURGA RAILWAY STATION APARTMENT SECTOR-10 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, Vs. SANPADA, NAVI MUMBAI- VASHI 400705, MAHARASHTRA NAVI MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA (��थ� Respondent) (अपीलाथ� Appellant) Permanent Account Number of AAJFH3132M Assessee: िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented Shri Subodh Ratna Parikh, by: CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 10-Jun-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 19.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073098964(1) dated 10.02.2025 passed against the assessment order by the Assessment Unit of the Income-tax Department u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income-tax Act,

ITA 3020/MUM/2025 Heera Siddhi Homes LLP A.Y. 2017-18

1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 18.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned AO erred in passing the reassessment order in violation of principles of natural justice by denying reasonable opportunity to respond. 2. The Learned PCIT erred in wrongly invoking Section 263 despite due inquiries and application of mind by the AO during original assessment. 3. The Learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making and confirming the addition under Section 68 despite the capital introduced by partners being fully explained with supporting evidence. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding that the appellant had established both the immediate source and the source of the source with full documentary evidence. 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without proper appreciation or verification of the evidences placed on record, rendering the order perverse. 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in misapplying the law on burden of proof and incorrectly insisted on proving source of source despite legal principles to the contrary. 7. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant voluntarily explained the source of the source, though it was not legally required for AY 2017–18. 8. The Learned authorities below erred in ignoring the appellant’s bona fide conduct, statutory compliance, and full disclosure while sustaining the addition.

ITA 3020/MUM/2025 Heera Siddhi Homes LLP A.Y. 2017-18

Officer and no remand report called for in the first appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to accept the request made by the ld. Counsel of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for de novo fresh consideration and making the assessment by passing a speaking order. Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to consider the material placed on record.

4.1. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by it. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all its submissions, so as to comply with the notices for hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.