IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3527/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-2021)

Pavan Vitthal Gaikwad C-704, Nightingle CHS., Opp Try Ice Cream, Behind Saraswat Bank, Mumbai - 400067 [PAN: ANNPG7561J] …………. Appellant Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Room No. 418, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department : None For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR Date Conclusion of hearing : 25.08.2025 Pronouncement of order : 28.08.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 24/03/2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-20 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCIT’] whereby the Assessment Order, dated 09/01/2021, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT, Mumbai -20) ('The learned Principal Commissioner') erred in invoking provisions of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, thereby passing the Order of Revision considering the order passed by Assessing Officer (NFAC) is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

2 In law and facts and circumstances of the case, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT, Mumbai -20) ('The learned Principal Commissioner') erred in invoking provisions of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, ignoring the facts that it was a limited scrutiny with reference to taxability u/s 56(2)(X)(b)(B) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of difference in value adopted for stamp duty purpose and actual purchase consideration and loan confirmations is out of the scope of Limited Scrutiny.

3 The learned Principal Commissioner has erred in ignoring the loan confirmations submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings and duly verified by the Assessing Officer (NFAC) during assessment.

4 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of appeal.”

3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. On perusal of the impugned order and the grounds raised in the present appeal, we proceeded to hear the Ld. Departmental Representative for adjudication of the present appeal on merits on the basis material on record. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and have taken into consideration the stand taken by the Assessee.

4. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present appeal, as emerging from the record, are that the Assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 on 09/01/2021. The return of income filed by the Assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “Purchase Value of Property less than the value as per Stamp authority (u/s. 56(2) or any other relevant section) (Business ITR)”. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee file reply/submission. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced and proceeded to pass Assessment Order, dated 25/09/2022, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act making an addition of INR.86,49,444/, being Assessee’s share of deemed income taxable as Income From Other Sources as per Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued by Ld. PCIT under Section 263(1) of the Act as the Ld. PCIT was of the view that Assessee had failed to furnished documents/details during the assessment proceeding regarding source of funds utilized by the Assessee for the purchase of immovable property. The Ld. PCIT noted that though the Assessee had stated that relevant documents/details were filed during the assessment proceedings, the same were not availa