Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Pawan Singh, Judicial Member, Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member
Nirmala Pennechand Sarda – Appellant
Versus
ITO, Ward – 42(2)(4), Mumbai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against cit(a) upholding ao's on-money addition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessee challenges addition based on third-party loose papers. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. cit(a) upholds addition relying on search evidence. (Para 5) |
| 4. tribunal hears assessee's arguments against presumptive addition. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 5. revenue defends addition via coded seized materials. (Para 8) |
| 6. no addition without corroborative evidence linking assessee. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. appeal allowed; addition deleted. (Para 13) |
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi [CIT (A)) has erred in upholding the validity of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(2) (4). Mumbai (JAO), whereas the assessment order so passed is clearly invalid, bad-in-law and contrary to the provisions of law. Appellant prays for quashing the assessment order so passed.
2. That on th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
