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

AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO-1(2)(1), M/s Aspect Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 536, 5^th floor, (Earlier known as Ironman Real Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Estate & Construction Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. Godown, Floor-5, Plot-66, KBJ Plaza Shaikh Memon Street, Mumbai-400 002.

PAN NO. AADCI 8434 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by : Mr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated

26.04.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.

CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) Ao-pam-3 erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 26,000/- as the assessee has failed to provide explanation/documentary evidence with regard to this amount?"

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 30,95,00,000/- as the assessee Ad- pose- Y has failed to provide explanation/documentary evidence with regard to this amount at the time of assessment proceedings?"

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 30,95,00,000/- without calling for remand report from the AO as the assessee has submitted additional evidences during the course of the appellate proceeding with regard to the investment of Rs. 30,95,00,000?"

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the La.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 10,00,00,000/-, on account of unexplained investment, as source of funds of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-, given as advance for property remains unexplained?

5. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.»

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. Nil, after claiming carry forward of current year losses of Rs.19,50,635/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied. The Assessing Officer made additions totaling to Rs.41,09,30,000/- to the loss returned by the assessee. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above.

3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book in three volumes 1 to 28, 1 to 26 and 1 to 13 respectively.

4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relate to addition of Rs.26,000/- in relation to registration of property, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).

4.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee had purchased a property and shown stamp duty charges of Rs.2,21,000/- and registration charges of Rs.30,000/-. The assessee explained source of the payment of the above expenses as under:

4.2 Although, the assessee failed to explain source of the payment of Rs.26,500/- for stamp duty through broker, but the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the copy of the bank statement of the assessee/broker and deleted the addition.

4.3 We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue arising for consideration in the present ground pertains to the payment of registration fee amounting to ₹26,500/-, which is stated to have been paid through the broker’s bank account. However, the record does not indicate with clarity as to how the assessee reimbursed or paid the said amount t