← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

Section 153A, AO had to assess the total income of six years under Section 153A. Since the assessments were not completed under Section 143(3), consequently, prior to the date of search i.e. 18th June, 2013, the assessment of the respondents had not attained finality and ITAT had erred

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Harkaran Singh Bindra, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1 (3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1086/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

have carefully considered the grounds raised by the appellant despite his non-responsive behaviour. The assessment order passed by the NFAC, Delhi under section 143(3) r.ws.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 stands as a well-reasoned and comprehensive document, thoroughly discussing the issues involved and the reasons

Karan Kumar, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 434/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

I.T.A. No.434/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Ropar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana Pr. Cit बनाम/ Vs. 93-Kiln Area, Nangal Ropar Sector -17E (Punjab) 140124. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aespk-7126-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)(Virtual) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 10-05-2023 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 12-10-2017. 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 12-10-2017 Wherein The Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs.8.79 Lacs After

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)(Virtual) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 183/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54BSection 54B(1)(i)

return was processed under section 143(1) and 2 subsequently selected for scrutiny. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 16.11.2018 accepting the returned income. 2.2 Subsequently, information was received from the office of DCIT (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad, that the assessee, along with his brother Shri ... after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. It is noted that the Assessing Officer, in the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, had denied 8 the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 54B of Rs.2,95,92,616/-, primarily on the grounds

Drishti Maths Test Series, Manjul Deep vs. National E Assessment, Nanded

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

ITA 2042/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2042/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs National E Drishti Maths Test Series, Manjul Deep, Assessment, Tilak Road, Nanded- Nanded Waghala-431602 Maharashtra Pan-Aanfd0241K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Pashan vs. ITO, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 1758/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2016

Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari, Prakasha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 1422/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1422/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhule. Legal Heir Anita Ambalal Chaudhari, Mukteshwar Mandir, At Post Prakasha, Taluka Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar- 425409. Pan : Afrpc1304D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Making/Confirming Additions Of Rs. 1020740/- To Returned Income U/S.69A Of The Act, As Said Section Is Applicable Only When In Any Financial Year The Assessee Is Found To Be Owner Of Any Money, Bullion, Jewellery Or Any Other

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep RathiFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 148Section 69A

justified in making/confirming additions of Rs. 1020740/- to returned income u/s.69A of the act, when the entire assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act is invalid as no any fresh notice u/s.148 was issued on legal heir of deceased assessee. So, when the original notice u/s.148 dated

M/S. Bekaert Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Page 1 सत्यमेव जयते IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Ganges

Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 24.02.2015. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 13.06.2016 determining total income at Rs.5,97,210/-. Subsequently, the AO noticed that the assessee had failed to disclose

Printech Park Cluster Bangalore, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1065/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Manohar Kanungo, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 685/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y. : 2009-10 C.O. No. 75/Mum/2025 : A.Y. : 2009-10 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 685/M/25)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Blufab Fashion Fabrics LLP, Andheri Kurla Road vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Pratishtha Bhavan

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statisti

ITA 4367/MUM/2025[19-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69BSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

Blufab Fashion Fabrics LLP, Andheri (East) vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Pratistha Bhavan

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statisti

ITA 4366/MUM/2025[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69BSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3762/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriwns Global Services Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax-6 Plant 11, Gate No. 4, Godrej Room No. 501, 5Th Floor & Boyce Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Piroshanagar, Lbs Marg, Karve Road, Mumbai Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400020. 400079 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw2598L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Shah & Ms. Hetal SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rivaara Labs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)

were not satisfied. 3. The Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 by treating the assessment order under section 143(3) by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Center ( the AO) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, without appreciating that

Indradhanu Textile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2417/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Indradhanu Textile Ito, Ward-3(2)(1), Private Limited, Room No. 673A, 104, Dalamal Tower Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan : Aacci9288F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 06-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit (A)"] Erred In Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 9,49,588/- As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 1,15,350/- The Appellant Prays That The Returned Income Be Considered As Correct Income.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J(SMC)” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS