KELVIN AIR CONDITIONING AND VENTILATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

The registry informed that the appeal is filed by the assessee with 287 days delay. The director of the assessee-company, Mr. Raveendra Shetty filed a notarized affidavit duly executed on 12/01/2026 and explained the delay for filing appeal. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the prayer of the assessee for condoning the delay. So, we find there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay for 287 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay for filing appeal for 287 days.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company, engaged in business of installation of air conditioner and ventilation systems. The assessee filed the return under section 139 (1) by declaring total income of Rs.6,81,000/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the statutory notices were issued. In assessment proceeding, the Ld. AO found the difference in Gross Receipt in books of accounts & Form-26AS amount of Rs.50,93,368/-. During verification, the assessee explained the difference & stated that the assessee booked the sales amount to Rs. 50,48,911/- with M/s. Pooja Construction Proprietor Mr. Vashudev Bhagnani for FY 2012-13. But due to some litigation the sale was duly reversed in the same financial year. But the TDS deducted by M/s Pooja Construction is reflected in Form-26AS which was claimed by the assessee amount to Rs.1,01,868/- during filing of return. The notice under section 133(6) was issued by the Ld. AO. The alleged party was duly complied the Kelvin Air Conditioning And Ventilation Systems Pvt. Ltd. said notice and confirm that the alleged sale was duly executed during the impugned assessment year. But after eight months of the alleged sale was reversed in books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee denied any banking transaction with the alleged party. The Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim and added back amount to Rs.50,93,368/- on account of difference of income in the profit and loss account with the Form-26AS. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering the assessee’s submission uphold the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

The Ld. AR argued filed a paper book containing page 1 to 49 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR advanced his argument and stated that the entire addition was made on basis of the statement recorded under section 133(6) from the party, M/s Pooja Construction. The assessee submitted the following documents in the paper book in relation to its claim which are as below:

The Ld. DR argued and relied on the orders of revenue authorities.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed its return of income, which was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated by the revenue. During the course of assessment, the Ld. AO noticed a mismatch between the gross receipts declared in the Profit and Loss Account and the income reflected in Form 26AS, amounting to Rs. 50,93,368/-. A show cause notice was issued, to which the assessee denied having any sales transaction with the party, namely M/s Pooja Construction, Proprietor Mr. Vasudev Bhagnani. However, upon consideration, the Ld. AO observed that sales were recorded as having been executed by the assessee on 08.05.2012 and 05.08.2012 for amounts of Rs.43,06,484/- and Rs.7,42,427.42 respectively. It was further noted that these sales were subsequently reversed on 31.03.2013, and accordingly, the assessee reversed the said transactions in its books of account. The assessee submitted copies of its bank statements, annexed at pages 41 to 44 of the APB, and contended that no payment was received from the said party through banking channels. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS amount of Rs. 1,01,868/-, which was inadvertently claimed by the assessee while filing the return of income, is liable to be refunded to the revenue, as the corresponding income was not credited in the books of account. It was further contended that the statement of the said party recorded under section 133(6) of Kelvin Air Conditioning And Ventilation Systems Pvt. Ltd. the Act was never furnished to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to verify the statement, and cross-verification with the concerned party was also denied. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, reasonable opportunity in relation to the impugned addition was not afforded to the assessee. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submissions made by the Ld. AR. In our considered view, the issue requires further factual verification by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with the following directions: a. The assessee shall be provided with a copy of the statement recorded under section 133(6) of the Act in respect of M/s Pooja Construction, Proprietor Mr. Vasudev Bhagnani, along with all other documents relied upon for making the impugned addition.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purpose.