Manish BhavanjiBheda Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Addition u/s 68 Set Aside for Fresh Consideration Where CIT(A) Failed to Decide Rule 46A Application
The Mumbai ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, in a case involving additions aggregating to ₹2.16 crore under section 68 on account of unsecured loans. The assessee contended that confirmation letters and supporting documents were attempted to be filed before the AO but were not considered, and that additional evidence was also filed before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not recorded any finding on the admissibility or disposal of the Rule 46A application. Holding that such non-consideration amounted to a serious procedural lapse, the ITAT remanded the entire matter—covering both additions of ₹86 lakh and ₹1.30 crore—to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and granting proper opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The appeal filed by the assesseeemanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre*in short, ‘CIT(A), NFAC’+, Delhi, dated 16.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
