← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Carcanet Infra Projects Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Pune

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2241/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 Carcanet Infra Projects Private V The Income Tax Officer, Limited, S Ward-1(2), Pune. Office No.460, Marvel Vista, Lulla Nagar Chowk, Sahaney Sujan Park, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaecc5337M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 04.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.03.2019. Ita No.2241/Pun/2025 [A] Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee As Follows : “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Dated 0-4Th July, 2025, Ignoring The Fact That An Earlier Order Under Section 250 Dated 23Rd November, 2021 Had Already Been Passed Allowing Withdrawal Of The Appeal Consequent To The Assessee Having Opted For The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Justification For Raising Additional Grounds 1) The Grounds Had Remained To Be Specifically Raised While Filing The Appeal. 2) The Grounds Raised Are Legal, Factual & Goes To The Root Of The Matter.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records.

Section 143(3)Section 250

Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 dated 04.07.2025 emanating from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25.03.2019. ITA No.2241/PUN/2025 [A] Additional Ground raised by the Assessee as follows ... No.5, ld.CIT(A)’s order, Assessment Order in the paper book. ITA No.2241/PUN/2025 [A] 3. In this case, there was regular assessment under section 143(3)on 30.12.2016. Assessee filed appeal against the said regular assessment order on 25.01.2017. 4. In this case, ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue

Kishor Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2196/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2196/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Etaps5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 176 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Pune

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 1105/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, Pune. Vascon Weikfileld Chamber, Opposite Hyatt Hotel, Nagar Road, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacv1249F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ajit Tolani & Darpan Kriplani Revenue By Smt. Indira R. Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.02.2025Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3/4) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 23.01.2017 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(u)

Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05.02.2025emanating from the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3/4) of the Act, 1961 dated 23.01.2017 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1105/PUN/2025

Karuppanna Gounder Paramasivam, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3363/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: MR. S. Senthil Kumar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु"ी प

Indo National Limited, Chennai vs. The Assessing Officer, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3289/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3289/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु"ी पदमावती यस, लेखा

The Ksrtc Employee Credit Co-Op Society Limited, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

ITA 2274/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2017-18 M/S. The Ksrtc Employee Credit Co-Op Society Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Aradhana Lodge, Near Busstand, Ward-1, Vs. Bagalkot, Karnataka – 587 101. Bagalkot. Pan: Aaaat4128M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT Assessment Year :2017-18 M/s

Zeeshaan Badami, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1749/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Zeeshaan Badami, 02 Killedar Complex, The Income Tax Officer, Near Ramangouder Hospital Ward-1(1), Malapur Road, Dharward, Vs. Hubli. Karnataka – 580 008. Pan: Bwnpb6034M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, CA
Section 143(3)Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC ’BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr

Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Sirsi, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Huballi

ITA 1165/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

Income under Chapter VI-A' and the latter has thoroughly examined all the necessary information and documents while passing the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the Assessment Order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 4. That the PCIT

Ge India Exports Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 293/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ge India Export Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 253/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

share transactions, purportedly linked to entities controlled by Shri Mukesh Choksi. After completion of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 147, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 7,09,828/-, as against the returned income ... proceedings were initiated and the basis on which penalty has ultimately been levied are not the same. In the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147, the Assessing Officer had made the following additions for A.Y. 2009– 10: i. unexplained investment in shares

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2 Ladderup Finance Limited 2015–16, arising out of the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of investment and finance and financial

Apar Lubricant Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the addition made on account of fringe benefit tax is deleted on merits, and the grounds relating to the validity of reopening are treated as academic

ITA 7360/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 147

under the head “Advertising, publicity and sales promotion expenses” in its profit and loss account. During the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3), the assessee had placed on record the complete details of these expenses, including ledgers, documentary evidences, and a detailed note on their nature. It was unequivocally

Hemant Prabhakar Sonar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 7337/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2022-23 Hemant Prabhakar Sonar Assessing Officer Dcit 1 B, 31/32 Sea Hill Union Park Khar 17(1) Mumbai Vs. Pali Hill, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai Mumbai - 400052 Pan: Aaips8971N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jay Shah, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar, [A M]:

For Appellant: Shri Jay Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] with regard to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short ‘the Act’) dated 19.03.2024 A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Addition

Ravinder Singh Sethi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7230/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ravinder Singh Sethi, Deputy Commissioner Of 19, Neeraj Industrial Estate, Income Tax-24(1), Mahakali Caves, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aegps5592H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bhupendra Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

Mr. Silvester Ligorio Rebello, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7118/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

Section 143(3)Section 148

aranr atiieta aftpeor ara tie Hag FI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Ramesh Deora, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

ITA 6377/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.08.2025 for the AY 2016-17, arises from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.03.2022 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. The grounds of appeal raised

A.C..I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6227/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

A.C.I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Akshay Jayantilal Doshi, Mumbai

ITA 6136/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit-Cc-8(4), Akshayjayantilaldoshi Mumbai 701, Bhoomibldg, Jvpd Room No. 658, 6Th Vs. Scheme Vileparle, Floor, Mumbai- 400056 Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai- 400020, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aahpd2867K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Jain Revenue By Shrisurendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar,Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)–50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 31.07.2025, For Assessment Year 2022–23, Whereby The Learned Cit(A) Deleted The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,64,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Vide Order Dated 02.06.2023 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] vide order dated 02.06.2023 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2022–23, the assessee filed his return