BHAVIN MAHENDRA KHATRI,C-30, AMBAJI APARTMENT PRIYAMOHAN CHS, ,DEVIDAYALC vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILIYA BHAVAN

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

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

ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Income Tax Officer, Representative of Late Bhavin Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 – Vs. Mahendra Khatri) 43, Avenue 3, Near Videsh 1401 Balaji Apartment, Bhavan, G Block BKC, Devidayal Road, Mulund (W), Bilban Area, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400080. Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ALLPK 4598 D Appellant Respondent

: Mr. Jainam Gala, CA & Assessee by Mr. Vicjey Chheda Revenue by : Mr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 24/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/02/2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11th September 2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 2 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 3 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025

Reliance Brands Ltd. responded by denying havi Reliance Brands Ltd. responded by denying having any transaction ng any transaction in financial year 2013 in financial year 2013-14 and no response was received from 14 and no response was received from Brooks Brother India Pvt. Ltd. The AO, noting a denial of Brooks Brother India Pvt. Ltd. The AO, noting a denial of Brooks Brother India Pvt. Ltd. The AO, noting a denial of transactions in F.Y. 2013 transactions in F.Y. 2013-14 by M/s Reliance Brands Ltd. and a 14 by M/s Reliance Brands Ltd. and a lack of response from M/s Brooks Brothers, treated the entire sum lack of response from M/s Brooks Brothers, treated the e lack of response from M/s Brooks Brothers, treated the e of ₹77,50,284/- as undisclosed income for the impugned year. as undisclosed income for the impugned year. as undisclosed income for the impugned year.

“5.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 to 6: The appellant during the 5.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 to 6: The appellant during the 5.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 to 6: The appellant during the appellate proceedings stated that the Assessing Officer erred in appellate proceedings stated that the Assessing Officer erred in appellate proceedings stated that the Assessing Officer erred in recomputing income at 88,06,034/ recomputing income at 88,06,034/- by adding entire difference in by adding entire difference in gross receipts. Assessing Officer erred in not adjusting various direct receipts. Assessing Officer erred in not adjusting various direct receipts. Assessing Officer erred in not adjusting various direct and indirect expenses, thereby duplicating income. The appellant is a and indirect expenses, thereby duplicating income. The appellant is a and indirect expenses, thereby duplicating income. The appellant is a small contractor and had declared turnover of 65,81,057/ small contractor and had declared turnover of 65,81,057/ small contractor and had declared turnover of 65,81,057/- with net income of 10,55,750/ income of 10,55,750/-. Further, as per appellant, out . Further, as per appellant, out of the gross receipts reflected in Form 26AS of 1,03,84,631/ receipts reflected in Form 26AS of 1,03,84,631/ receipts reflected in Form 26AS of 1,03,84,631/-, a sum of 77,50,284/- was already accounted in F.Y. 2013 was already accounted in F.Y. 2013-14. However, the 14. However, the payer company booked it in F.Y. 2014 payer company booked it in F.Y. 2014-15 and deducted TDS in that 15 and deducted TDS in that year, leading to mismatch. Further, the appellant stat year, leading to mismatch. Further, the appellant stat year, leading to mismatch. Further, the appellant stated that Assessing Officer wrongly added the entire 77,50,284/ Assessing Officer wrongly added the entire 77,50,284/ Assessing Officer wrongly added the entire 77,50,284/- to the income of F.Y. 2014 of F.Y. 2014-15 without considering the fact that it was already 15 without considering the fact that it was already declared in earlier year. If such addition is made, then expenses of declared in earlier year. If such addition is made, then expenses of declared in earlier year. If such addition is made, then expenses of 71,25,611/- pertaining to these receipts must pertaining to these receipts must also be allowed, else also be allowed, else there is duplication of income. In reality, the difference in gross there is duplication of income. In reality, the difference in gross there is duplication of income. In reality, the difference in gross receipts was only 39,46,410/ receipts was only 39,46,410/-, but the Assessing Officer added the , but the Assessing Officer added the

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 4 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025

entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high entire amount. This has resulted in double taxation and a high-pitched assessment, contrary to pri assessment, contrary to principles of natural justice. Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the Assessing Officer compared Form 26AS with the sales declared by the appellant and found that receipts were substantially higher than those appellant and found that receipts were substantially higher than those appellant and found that receipts were substantially higher than those disclosed. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to both parties (Reliance disclosed. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to both parties (Reliance disclosed. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to both parties (Reliance Brands Ltd. and Brooks Brands Ltd. and Brooks Brothers India Pvt. Ltd.). Reliance Brands Ltd. Brothers India Pvt. Ltd.). Reliance Brands Ltd. categorically denied any transaction with the appellant in F.Y. 2013 categorically denied any transaction with the appellant in F.Y. 2013 categorically denied any transaction with the appellant in F.Y. 2013- 14, contradicting the appellant's claim. As per Assessing Officer, the 14, contradicting the appellant's claim. As per Assessing Officer, the 14, contradicting the appellant's claim. As per Assessing Officer, the assessee could not obtain confirmations from the parties or produce assessee could not obtain confirmations from the parties or produce assessee could not obtain confirmations from the parties or produce independent evidence to substantiate the claim that receipts pertained independent evidence to substantiate the claim that receipts pertained independent evidence to substantiate the claim that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013-14. Since TDS was deducted and credited in F.Y. 2014 14. Since TDS was deducted and credited in F.Y. 2014 14. Since TDS was deducted and credited in F.Y. 2014- 15, receipts were rightfully taxable in this year. The onus of proving 15, receipts were rightfully taxable in this year. The onus of proving 15, receipts were rightfully taxable in this year. The onus of proving that receipts belong to an earlier year lies squ that receipts belong to an earlier year lies squarely on the assessee, arely on the assessee, which he failed to discharge. Hence, Assessing Officer treated which he failed to discharge. Hence, Assessing Officer treated which he failed to discharge. Hence, Assessing Officer treated 77,50,284/-as receipts of the current year and computed total income as receipts of the current year and computed total income as receipts of the current year and computed total income accordingly at 88.06.034/ accordingly at 88.06.034/-. The appellant has argued that receipts of 77,50,284/ The appellant has argued that receipts of 77,50,284/ The appellant has argued that receipts of 77,50,284/- were already Vaccounted in F.Y. 2013 nted in F.Y. 2013-14. However, no corroborative evidence has 14. However, no corroborative evidence has been produced to demonstrate that such receipts were indeed declared been produced to demonstrate that such receipts were indeed declared been produced to demonstrate that such receipts were indeed declared as income in the earlier year. Mere entries in self as income in the earlier year. Mere entries in self-maintained books maintained books are insufficient unless backed by third are insufficient unless backed by third-party confirmatio party confirmations, audited accounts, or reconciliation accepted by the concerned deductors. On accounts, or reconciliation accepted by the concerned deductors. On accounts, or reconciliation accepted by the concerned deductors. On the contrary, Reliance Brands Ltd., a major payer, has specifically the contrary, Reliance Brands Ltd., a major payer, has specifically the contrary, Reliance Brands Ltd., a major payer, has specifically denied any transaction in F.Y. 2013 denied any transaction in F.Y. 2013-14. This denial weakens the 14. This denial weakens the appellant's case considerably. Therefore, th appellant's case considerably. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's action e Assessing Officer's action of treating the receipts as pertaining to F.Y. 2014 of treating the receipts as pertaining to F.Y. 2014-15 is correct in law. 15 is correct in law. The appellant's plea that proportionate expenses of 71,25,611/ The appellant's plea that proportionate expenses of 71,25,611/ The appellant's plea that proportionate expenses of 71,25,611/- should also be allowed is not sustainable. These expenses have should also be allowed is not sustainable. These expenses have should also be allowed is not sustainable. These expenses have already been claimed in ea already been claimed in earlier year against turnover shown for that rlier year against turnover shown for that year. Allowing them again would amount to double deduction. Since year. Allowing them again would amount to double deduction. Since year. Allowing them again would amount to double deduction. Since appellant failed to establish that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013 appellant failed to establish that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013 appellant failed to establish that receipts pertained to F.Y. 2013-14, the question of adjusting earlier year's expenses in current year does the question of adjusting earlier year's expenses in current year does the question of adjusting earlier year's expenses in current year does not arise. The allegation of over rise. The allegation of over-assessment and multiplicity of assessment and multiplicity of additions is also not tenable. The Assessing Officer has simply brought additions is also not tenable. The Assessing Officer has simply brought additions is also not tenable. The Assessing Officer has simply brought to tax receipts reflected in 26AS which were not shown in books for to tax receipts reflected in 26AS which were not shown in books for to tax receipts reflected in 26AS which were not shown in books for this year. No income has been taxed twice. In fact, the this year. No income has been taxed twice. In fact, the this year. No income has been taxed twice. In fact, the claim of earlier year recognition is unsupported by evidence and stands contradicted year recognition is unsupported by evidence and stands contradicted year recognition is unsupported by evidence and stands contradicted by payer's confirmation. Therefore, the addition cannot be termed as by payer's confirmation. Therefore, the addition cannot be termed as by payer's confirmation. Therefore, the addition cannot be termed as duplication. The appellant has sought relief on the ground that only duplication. The appellant has sought relief on the ground that only duplication. The appellant has sought relief on the ground that only "real income" can be taxed. It is "real income" can be taxed. It is settled law that receipts evidenced by settled law that receipts evidenced by TDS deduction and credited in assessee's account during the year are TDS deduction and credited in assessee's account during the year are TDS deduction and credited in assessee's account during the year are real and taxable income of that year, unless assessee demonstrates real and taxable income of that year, unless assessee demonstrates real and taxable income of that year, unless assessee demonstrates with documentary proof that such receipts have already been offered with documentary proof that such receipts have already been offered with documentary proof that such receipts have already been offered in earlier year. Since appellant has failed to discharge this onus, ear. Since appellant has failed to discharge this onus, ear. Since appellant has failed to discharge this onus,

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 5 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025

Assessing Officer's action stands justified. In view of the above, I hold Assessing Officer's action stands justified. In view of the above, I hold Assessing Officer's action stands justified. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer has correctly added 77,50,284/ that the Assessing Officer has correctly added 77,50,284/ that the Assessing Officer has correctly added 77,50,284/- to the income of the assessee. The appellant's contentions of dupli income of the assessee. The appellant's contentions of dupli income of the assessee. The appellant's contentions of duplication, allowance of earlier year expenses, and high allowance of earlier year expenses, and high-pitched assessment are pitched assessment are devoid of merit. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are devoid of merit. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are devoid of merit. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are dismissed.” 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently argued Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently argued Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently argued that the assessment was concluded in haste that the assessment was concluded in haste on 19.12.2017, despite on 19.12.2017, despite a request for an adjournment until 26.12.2017 to submit a detailed a request for an adjournment until 26.12.2017 to submit a detailed a request for an adjournment until 26.12.2017 to submit a detailed reconciliation. It was submitted no reasonable opportunity was reconciliation. It was submitted no reasonable opportunity was reconciliation. It was submitted no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the receipt provided to the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the receipt provided to the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the receipt which were appearing in the Form which were appearing in the Form No. 26AS and not offered for tax No. 26AS and not offered for tax in the assessment year under consideration with the income in the assessment year under consideration with the income in the assessment year under consideration with the income already offered in assessment year 2014 already offered in assessment year 2014-15 i.e. immediately 15 i.e. immediately preceding preceding preceding assessment assessment assessment year. year. year. The The The assessee assessee assessee filed filed filed detailed detailed detailed reconciliation statement along with profit and l reconciliation statement along with profit and loss account for oss account for assessment year 2014 assessment year 2014-15 and return of income for assessment year 15 and return of income for assessment year 2014-15, which clearly demonstrate that the impugned receipts 15, which clearly demonstrate that the impugned receipts 15, which clearly demonstrate that the impugned receipts were subjected to tax in that year but the Ld. CIT(A) without were subjected to tax in that year but the Ld. CIT(A) without were subjected to tax in that year but the Ld. CIT(A) without considering dismissed the prayer of the assessee. Conversely, the considering dismissed the prayer of the assessee. considering dismissed the prayer of the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied heavily on the orders of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied heavily on the orders of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below, emphasizing the categorical denial by the the authorities below, emphasizing the categorical denial by the the authorities below, emphasizing the categorical denial by the deductor.

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 6 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025

accrual basis) and the deduction of tax by the payees. It is a accrual basis) and the deduction of tax by the payees. accrual basis) and the deduction of tax by the payees. fundamental principle of taxation that the same income cannot be fundamental principle of taxation that the same income cannot be fundamental principle of taxation that the same income cannot be taxed twice. If the Assessee has taxed twice. If the Assessee has already offered the receipts to tax in already offered the receipts to tax in A.Y. 2014-15, bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015 15, bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015 15, bringing the same to tax again in A.Y. 2015-16 merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead merely because the TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The issue in to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. dispute is reconciliatio dispute is reconciliation of the receipt in respect of two parties n of the receipt in respect of two parties shown by the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 along with shown by the assessee in assessment year 2014 shown by the assessee in assessment year 2014 detail of the Form 26AS comprising of receipt from two parties. It is detail of the Form 26AS comprising of receipt from two parties. It is detail of the Form 26AS comprising of receipt from two parties. It is the contention of the assessee that the receipt which the Assessing the contention of the assessee that the receipt which the Assessing the contention of the assessee that the receipt which the Assessing Officer has added in the assessment year 2015 ed in the assessment year 2015-16 i.e. the current 16 i.e. the current assessment year have already offered in the immediately preceding assessment year have already offered in the immediately preceding assessment year have already offered in the immediately preceding assessment year 2014 assessment year 2014-15.

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 7 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/MUM/2025

directed to (i) Conduct a de novo verification of the reconciliation Conduct a de novo verification of the reconciliation Conduct a de novo verification of the reconciliation statement provided by the Assessee, (ii) tement provided by the Assessee, (ii) Examine the bills issued in Examine the bills issued in A.Y. 2014-15 and verify if the corresponding income was indeed 15 and verify if the corresponding income was indeed 15 and verify if the corresponding income was indeed offered to tax in that offered to tax in that year, and (iii) Allow the Assessee a reasonable Allow the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third-party opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third evidence or certificates from the deductors evidence or certificates from the deductors and then decide the and then decide the issue in accordance with law issue in accordance with law. Accordingly the ground No. 1 and 2 of Accordingly the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. the appeal of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 27/02/2026. /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/02/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative Shital Bhavin Khatri (Legal Representative 8 of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) of Late Bhavin Mahendra Khatri) ITA No. 7247/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