← 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)

Om Shri Shubh Labh Agritech Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Gwalior

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 386/AGR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2021-22 Om Shri Shubh Labh Agritech Pvt. V Acit, Central Circle Ltd. Gwalior In Front Of Iiitm College, Near Hazira Police Station, Morena Link Road, Gwalior- 474 015 Pan : Aacco5246R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Rajkumar Jetwani, Agra vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Agra

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Jetwani V Pcit-1, 203, 2Nd Floor, Anant Vilas, Mauja Agra Bodla, Agra 282 007 Pan : Aavpj6200C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Shri Hanuman Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangh Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nippani

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

ITA 235/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.235/PAN/2025

ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

NFAC wherein the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO passed under section 143(3) for the A.Y. 2017- 18 on 29.12.2019. The grounds of the appeal are as under: - “1- Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts

Veeracharya Babasaheb Kuchnure Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

appeal of the assessee by observing as under : “5. Finding and Decision: 5.1 I have carefully examined the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 12.04.2021, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts, and the detailed written submissions filed by the appellant, along with the judicial authorities relied

Veeracharya Babasaheb Kuchnure Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

appeal of the assessee by observing as under : “5. Finding and Decision: 5.1 I have carefully examined the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 12.04.2021, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts, and the detailed written submissions filed by the appellant, along with the judicial authorities relied

Raju Lekharaj Tanwani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2709/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2709/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Lekhraj Tanwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4Th Floor, Near Vasant Bhawan, Circle-1,Aurangabad Arihant Apartment, Machhali Khadak, Aurangabad -431 001 Maharashtra Pan : Abwpt0845K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2709/PUN/2025

Suketu Rajnikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghvi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2125/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year

Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

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

Jadav Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2911/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

holding that the reassessment was validly initiated under section 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and there was no failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary ... said amount of share capital of Rs 14,48,50,000/- from different companies during the course of the assessment proceedings under section 143(3). But after the assessment order was passed, it accepted the amount received and opted for a settlement under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme-2019 with respect

Rajendran Sharmila, Annur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No 2315/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendran Sharmila 1/66 Main Road, Kariagoundanur Vadakkalur Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641653 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Све (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Bicps 3272 D] अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/ Assessee By Mr. K. Muthukumar, Ca प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे / Respondent By Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of 16.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Dated 07.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,50,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”).

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्रीमनुकुमारगिरि, न्यायिकसदस्य एवं श्रीएस. आर. रघुनाथालेखासदस्य BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Movate Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2467/CHNY/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Suvilas Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1140/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Prasanna N Urala
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 263Section 272A(1)(d)

3. The PCIT erred in invoking the revisional jurisdiction without satisfying the twin jurisdictional conditions that the assessment order dated 28.12.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was (i) erroneous and (ii) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. The PCIT erred in proceeding to cancel

Clover Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7922/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13 Clover Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-6(1)(1), Flat No. 12, Mumbai. 1St Floor, Plot No. 541/C, Vs. Ashok Building, Edenwalla Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan : Aaacg1925B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Gopal A/W. Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Freightbridge Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7792/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w Mr. Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44B

impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 28.03.2024. 2 Freightbridge Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Din Dayal Jalan Textiles Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7678/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardin Dayal Jalan Textile Acit-4(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 642, 6Th 904-5, Royal Square, 9Th Vs. Floor, Aayakr Floor, 173, Dr. Vigas Bhavan, Queen Street, Mumbai-400 002 Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcd2310E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. C. Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 69A

Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 16.10.2025for the Assessment Year 2022–23, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 2 Din Dayal Jalan Textile Pvt. Ltd. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]dated ... that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding the source of such unaccounted cash transaction. 7. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B at total income of Rs. 7,50,90,910/-, comprising: - Returned income: Rs. 5,50,90,910/- - Addition under section

Bang Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

from the order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) of the Act date of order 26.12.2017. 2 Bang Equity Broking Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds: Ground

Dimple Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7260/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2017-18 Dimple Realtors Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 210, Wing B, Income Tax, Western Edge Ii, Vs. Circle-4(2)(1), Borivali East, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400066. Marine Lines, Pan : Aaacd4136F Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ms. Rupa Nanda For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

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

Mayur Praful Baxi, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6818/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil R. Shendge, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Piyush Subhash Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), Delhi

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

ITA 6803/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpiyush Subhash Wadhwa V/S. Commissioner Of Income 64, Ashirwad Icici बनाम Tax (Appeal)National Apartments, Gd Ambekar Appeal Faceless Centre, Marg, Naigaon Dadar(E), Delhi Mumbai – 400 014, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpw3024N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 282A(1)Section 57

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT