“first appeal”

Jinit Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO24.(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed, in the above terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Jinit Shah, Ito 24 (1) (1), 101-102 Shreeji Friends Chsl, Piramal Chambers, Room Vs. Jp Road, Andheri West, No. 604, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400058. Mumbai – 40013. Pan – Dygps 9287 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. A.R. (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income At Rs.3,61,420/- By Filing Return Of Income On Dated 31.10.2017 From The Business Of Consumer Durables, Including T.V. Sets, Lcd, Refrigerators, Air Conditions, Music Systems, Etc.

income determined includes income referred to in Section 69A of the Act.” 6. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and at the outset has submitted as under: (a) That AO has not rejected the books of accounts of the Assessee

Jasaram Kesramji Rathod, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 Jasaram K. Rathod, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.1, Plot No.391, Ward-28(1)(1), Saidham Building, Vs. It Office, Sector 19, Opp: Jimmy Tower, Vashi Railway Station Building, Kopar Khairne, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan : Aacpc3348K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pritam Kulapkar, Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23-07-2025 Impugned Herein Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short „Nfac‟)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short „Ld. Commissioner‟) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income Of Rs. 16,97,210/-By Filing His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On Dt. 01-11-2013, Which Was Subsequently Reopened For Re-Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act, Mainly On The Reason That The Assessee Though Made Cash Payment Of Rs. 22,50,000/-For Purchase Of Land With Shri Mahesh M. Munde & 11 Others, But Has Not Offered The Same For Taxation For The Ay. 2013-14. 2 3. The Assessee In Response Filed His Return Of Income On 05-01-2022, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,97,210/-As Declared Originally. The Said Return Filed By The Assessee Was Declared/Considered As Belated And/Or Filed After The Stipulated Time Given In The Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act I.E., Within Thirty Days And, Therefore, The Same Was Treated As „Nonest’ & Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Finalized U/S. 144 Of The Act Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs. 22,50,000/- By Passing The Assessment Order Dt. 29-03-2022 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the said addition as well, as the assessment order by filing first appeal and raising various grounds, including challenging the validity of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, beyond the time limit prescribed

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

income of the assessee, by passing the assessment order. 9. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition of disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite affording four opportunities, made no compliance. 10. As observed above that the Assessee was detected with cancer in February

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

said amount of Rs.2,95,133/- in the income of the Assessee. 10. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, the allotment letter of the property issued in the year

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

alleged, as the Assessee had jointly purchased the property with his uncle. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition and therefore, the assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal. 5. Heard

Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, National Faceless Appeal Plot No. 61, Brillanto House, Centre (Cit(A)/Dcit -1 Vs. Road No.13, Midc, Andheri (E), (2) (1), Mumbai – 400093. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan – Aadpk 3631 Q Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rituraj Gurjar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Earned Rental Income Of Rs. 6,40,099/-, However, While Preparing & Filing The Itr, Due To Glitch In Software & Inadvertently Mentioned The Said Income Of 6,40,099/- In Itr Twice, Mentioning Single Property In Two Columns. Whereas It Is A Fact That The Assessee Has Earned The Rental Income Of Rs. 6,40,009/- Only. However, The Cpc, Processed The Return Filed By The Assessee On Dated 13.03.2022, Vide Intimation Dated 22.04.2022, Whereby The Income From House Property Has Been 2 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari

Rohit Sukhram Kandhari determined to the tune of Rs. 12,80,198/- and therefore, the assessee being aggrieved challenged the said intimation by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 22.05.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the intimation dated 22.04.2022 under Section

Shri. Mahendra Harichand Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 5(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

ultimately disallowed being interest on unproved loans claimed u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. 3 Commissioner by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, affirmed ... loans taken from the aforesaid parties to the tune of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in the previous years and, therefore, the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, 4 however, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 10. It is also a fact that during

Shri Rahul Sumerchand Dodal L/H Shri Sumerchand R Dodal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, however with liberty as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2014-15

shares, as un-explained income u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition/ disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner on the identical reasons, as of the AO, ultimately affirmed the aforesaid

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

interest. However, AO did not concur with the contention of the assessee and made this addition to the income of the assessee. In the first appeal, Id CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Hence, this appeal by the assessee. 7. During the course of hearing, Id A. R. reiterated

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

interest. However, AO did not concur with the contention of the assessee and made this addition to the income of the assessee. In the first appeal, Id CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Hence, this appeal by the assessee. 7. During the course of hearing, Id A. R. reiterated

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

interest. However, AO did not concur with the contention of the assessee and made this addition to the income of the assessee. In the first appeal, Id CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Hence, this appeal by the assessee. 7. During the course of hearing, Id A. R. reiterated

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

ultimately made the addition of Rs. 37,99,500/- on account of variation in respect of unexplained cash deposits. 6. The assessee though preferred first appeal before Ld. Commissioner with the delay of 674 days in filing of the same, however, despite granting various opportunities, except filing a reply

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

ultimately made the addition of Rs. 37,99,500/- on account of variation in respect of unexplained cash deposits. 6. The assessee though preferred first appeal before Ld. Commissioner with the delay of 674 days in filing of the same, however, despite granting various opportunities, except filing a reply

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

ultimately made the addition of Rs. 37,99,500/- on account of variation in respect of unexplained cash deposits. 6. The assessee though preferred first appeal before Ld. Commissioner with the delay of 674 days in filing of the same, however, despite granting various opportunities, except filing a reply