IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2009-10.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and is law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred holding merely by looking at the of bank statement only, which reflects that there exists debit entries of almost similar amounts of credit entries, confirms that it would be incorrect to hold that entire credit entries can be added u/s.68 of the Act.

2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in misinterpreting the AO's stand that in case the assessee is able to prove the source & destination of the credit and debit entries in the bank account, then the assessed is liable to tax of commission income only.

3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by relying upon the self serving bank summary and some details regarding names and PANs of various parties, and summarily deciding the issue in favour of the assessee by not making any further enquiries in this regard to arrive upon the correct facts substantiating the source and destination of credit and debit entries.

4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary.”

3. It is observed that the Revenue has filed the appeal belatedly after the delay of 45 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation and upon considering the application for condonation of the delay, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the present appeal.

Hence, the delay is condoned.

4. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee and neither any adjournment application was filed before us, we hereby proceed to decide the appeal by hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,10,850/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 29.07.2010. The assessee filed his revised return of income dated 19.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs.1,62,560/-. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice dated 28.10.2013 u/s 148 of the Act based on the information received from the ACIT Circle 23(3), Mumbai that during the course of investigation in the case of Shri Vinay G. Desai that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.25,87,01,299/- in account bearing No.233010200016250 at Axis Bank, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-20 maintained by M/s. Navkar Trading Co., in which the assessee is said to be the proprietor and since the assessee has not declared the same in his return of income, the assessment was reopened as income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In response to the said notice the assessee filed his return of income dated 19.12.2011 declaring the original return of income to be the return of income in response to the said notice. It is observed that the assessee has not filed any details pertaining to the debit and credit entries in spite of vario