Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta,Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 3 July, 2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y Applicant Respondent 4112/Mum/2024 201920 J Kumar Madanlal DCIT , CC 5(1) 4111/Mum/2024 202122 Gupta J Kumar Room No. 426, 4th 4110/Mum/2024 2022.23 House, CTS No. Floor, Kautilya 448, 448/1, 449, Bhavan, BKC, Subhash Road, Bandra, Mumbai Vile Parle (E), 400051. Mumbai PAN AACPG2753N 4584/Mum/2024 201920 DCIT , CC 5(1) J Kumar Madanlal 4583/Mum/2024 202021 Room No. 426, 4th Gupta J Kumar 4582/Mum/2024 202122 Floor, Kautilya House, CTS No. 4581/Mum/2024 202223 Bhavan, BKC, 448, 448/1, 449, Bandra, Mumbai Subhash Road, Vile 400051. Parle (E), Mumbai PAN AACPG2753N Assessee by Shri K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue by Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 PER The present appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as revenue challenging the impugned order 24.06.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment years 201920 to 202223. 2 J Kumar Madanlal Gupta The above titled cross appeals have been preferred against the order dated 24.06.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] relevant to assessment years 201920, 202021, 202122 and 202223 First of all we take up assessee's appeal No. 4112/Mum/2024 and revenues appeal No. 4584/Mum/2024 as both the appeals pertains to same assessment year i.e A.Y 201617 and are against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 1. For this year, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.31,46,560/ on account of bogus purchase. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 27,74,197/ against addition of Rs.31,46,460/, on estimate basis without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the addition be deleted. 2.On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.7,93,000/ in respect of personal nature of expenses noted in cash diary as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the ld.AO by confirming the additions of Rs.7,93,000/ without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting/deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs.31,46,560/in respect of bogus purchase made by the AO to Rs.27,74,197/ by restricting 100% disallowance made by the AO to 12.5%, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer. 3 J Kumar Madanlal Gupta 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the ration laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of N.K Protein (2017) 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)/[2017] 250 Taxman 22 (SC), 2017TIOL23 SCIT while finalizing the order in the case of assessee wherein 100% of the bogus purchases were held liable to be added in the hands of the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting/deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 24,84,55,000/ in respect of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary, mad