Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dcit Cc 8(2),Mumbai, Mumbai vs Jasmit Amarjit Tibb, Mumbai on 25 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"F" BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &
SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
1. ITA No. 4345/Mum/2025
(Assessment Year: 2017-18)
DCIT CC 8(2) Jasmit Amarjit
Room No. 658, Aayakar Tibb,
Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. Charat Singh
Mumbai-400 020 Bunglow, Dr.
Charat Singh
Colony, Andheri
Kurla Road,
Andheri (E),
Mumbai-400 093
PAN/GIR No. AAGPT0546G
(Applicant) (Respondent)
2. C.O. No. 222/Mum/2025
(Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Jasmit Amarjit Tibb, DCIT CC 8(2)
Dr. Charat Singh Room No. 658,
Bunglow, Dr. Charat Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.
Singh Colony, Andheri K. Road, Mumbai-
Kurla Road, Andheri 400 020
(E), Mumbai-400 093
PAN/GIR No. AAGPT0546G
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Revenue by Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. DR
Assessee by Shri Harsh Kapdia, Ld. AR
2 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5
& C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5
J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b
Date of Hearing 11.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026
आदे श / ORDER
PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
- 50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], arising out of the assessment order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer "]under section 153C read with section 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Facts of the Case
2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of food products under the brand "Tibbs Frankie", operating through a franchisee-based model. The assessee runs the business through multiple outlets across Mumbai along with its own manufacturing facility, and the sales are predominantly effected through franchise outlets, wherefrom cash collections are received and recorded in the books of account.
3. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of One World Group and its 3 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b associated entities. During the course of search and post-search proceedings, various documents were seized and statements of key persons, including Shri Manoj Khushalani and Shri Urvil Jani, were recorded. The Assessing Officer, based on such material, observed that certain entities of the group were engaged in providing accommodation entries and that the transactions recorded in their books were not genuine and not supported by actual movement of goods. The Assessing Officer further noted that certain loose sheets seized during the search contained entries reflecting cash transactions aggregating to Rs.1,84,35,000/- in connection with "investment in Tibbs Jasmit Tibbs", wherein the name of the assessee appeared in corresponding cheque entries. Based on such seized material and statements recorded during search, proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee.
4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to explain the nature and source of the entries appearing in the seized documents. The assessee, during the assessment proceedings contended that the addition was based on third-party documents and statements, without establishing any direct nexus with the assessee. It was also contended that no opportunity of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon was provided, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the seized document did not conclusively establish receipt of any cash by the assessee. It was further contended that the entries, if any, were misinterpreted 4 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b and could not be relied upon without corroborative evidence. It was submitted that the business of the assessee was carried on through a franchise model, and investments for setting up outlets were made by franchisees independently.
5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations furnished. The Assessing Officer recorded that the seized loose sheet specifically recorded details of cash transactions amounting to Rs.1,84,35,000/- linked with the assessee. It was also recorded that statements recorded during search and post-search proceedings established that the group entities were engaged in non-genuine transactions and accommodation entries and the transactions reflected in the seized documents were not supported by any independent documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer concluded that he assessee failed to discharge the burden of explaining the nature and source of the alleged cash transactions. The Assessing Officer invoked the statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act to treat the contents of the seized documents as true and correct. Relying upon the evidentiary value of statements recorded on oath and applying the test of human probabilities, the Assessing Officer concluded that the impugned amount represented unexplained money of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,84,35,000/- under section 69A of the Act.
6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, 5 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b the assessee reiterated its submissions and further furnished documentary evidences, including franchise agreements, affidavits, email correspondences, and business records. The assessee submitted that there was no material on record to demonstrate that any cash payment was made to the assessee and the Assessing Officer had relied upon presumptions and third-party material without establishing a direct nexus. It was submitted that the franchise business model clearly demonstrated that investments for setting up outlets were to be made by franchisees and not by the assessee. It was further submitted that the cheque transactions recorded in the seized documents were duly accounted for, and selective reliance on entries was not permissible. The assessee also contended that material gathered in the case of another person could not be used against the assessee without affording proper opportunity and establishing its relevance.
7. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and material available on record, recorded the following findings:
The assessee was operating under a franchise model wherein the responsibility for making investments for setting up outlets rested with the franchisees, and the assessee, as franchisor, had no role in such investments;
There was no direct evidence on record to establish that any cash payments were made to the assessee;
6 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b The addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged transactions;
The evidences furnished by the assessee, including agreements and affidavits, supported its explanation and were not disproved by the Assessing Officer;
The reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on seized documents and third-party statements without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee was not sustainable.
8. The CIT(A) further held that the statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C could not be invoked in a mechanical manner without considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and the surrounding facts. In view of the above findings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,84,35,000/- made under section 69A of the Act.
9. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal raising the following grounds:
1. On facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,84,35,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the seized incriminating material clearly evidencing unaccounted cash transactions pertaining to the appellant.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in accepting self-serving explanations, affidavits, email correspondences, and franchise agreements furnished by the assessee without conducting any independent verification or obtaining third-party confirmation, 7 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b particularly in a case arising from search action involving seizure of incriminating material.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the evidences relied upon by the assessee were internal documents between related parties and lacked independent corroboration, and therefore could not dislodge the statutory presumptions arising from the seized material under section 132(4A) and section 292C of the Act.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the seized loose sheet (page no. 27 of Annexure A-55) recovered during search proceedings, which specifically recorded details of cash transactions amounting to Rs.1,84,35,000/- in connection with "investment in Tibbs Jasmit Tibbs", and contained the name of the appellant in the corresponding cheque entry, thereby establishing nexus with the assessee.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the genuineness of cheque entries recorded on the same seized document while completely disregarding the cash transactions recorded therein, which is illogical, inconsistent, and contrary to settled legal principles.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by concluding that the assessee's passport and travel records, in the absence of any direct evidence rebutting the seized material, were sufficient to negate the cash transactions, failing to consider that cash transactions can be undertaken through representatives or intermediaries.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in placing reliance on the franchise business model to conclude that no cash investment would have been made by the assessee, ignoring the specific finding of cash transactions as per seized material and overlooking the personal capacity in which the cash payments were allegedly made.
8. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to correctly apply the statutory presumptions under section 132(4A) and 292C of the Act, which mandate presumption of correctness of contents of documents found and seized during search, unless rebutted by cogent evidence, which the assessee failed to produce.
9. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, unsustainable in law and contrary to the facts of the case, and therefore, the deletion of 8 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b addition made under section 69A of the Act deserves to be set aside and the addition of Rs.1,84,35,000/- made by the Assessing Officer ought to be restored.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.
10. The assessee has filed cross-objection raising the following ground:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, proceedings u/s.153C for the A.Y.2017-2018 is invalid without jurisdiction and bad in law and therefore, it deserves to be quashed.
The Respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal.
11. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and invited our attention to para 7.3 of the assessment order to substantiate the addition made under section 69A of the Act. Referring to para 7.3.1 of the assessment order, the ld. DR submitted that the seized material, particularly page no. 27 of Annexure A-55, clearly evidences that an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was invested in the assessee's business through banking channels and a further amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid in cash. It was further submitted that page no. 1 of the seized documents indicates that Smt. Roshni Jani, wife of Shri Urvil Jani, had advanced unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the assessee. The ld. DR further drew our attention to page no. 21 of the seized material, being an email dated 20.10.2016 sent by Shri Urvil Jani to Shri Satyen Dalal, with a copy marked to the assessee, wherein it was stated that an investment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by cheque and Rs. 1,94,00,000/-
9 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b in cash had been made in the Frankie business of the assessee. Thus, according to the ld. DR, the total investment made by Shri Urvil Jani in the assessee's business amounted to Rs. 2,94,00,000/-.The ld. DR submitted that the figures recorded in the seized loose sheet corroborate the contents of the aforesaid email, as the total of the entries therein also aggregates to Rs. 2.94 crore, comprising Rs. 1 crore through cheque and the balance in cash. It was contended that such seized material, read in conjunction with the statements recorded during search and post-search proceedings, clearly establishes that the assessee had received unaccounted cash. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer, after analyzing the seized material, quantified the amount of cash received by the assessee during the year under consideration at Rs. 1,84,35,000/-, which remained unexplained by the assessee either during post-search proceedings or during assessment proceedings. The ld. DR also placed reliance on the statements of Shri Urvil Jani and Shri Manoj Khushalani, directors of One World Group entities, wherein it was admitted that such entities were engaged in providing accommodation entries and did not possess financial capacity. It was thus contended that the transactions reflected in the seized material were not genuine and represented unaccounted money of the assessee. Placing reliance on CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in examining the surrounding circumstances and in drawing inference based on human probabilities.
10 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b
12. The ld. DR further invited our attention to the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 11 and 12 of the appellate order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in selectively accepting and rejecting portions of the same seized material. Referring to the observations of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. DR submitted that the appellate authority has accepted that the cheque payment of Rs. 1 crore, as recorded in the seized documents, pertains to the assessee and represents a genuine transaction. However, the ld. CIT(A), while dealing with the very same seized documents, has disbelieved the entries relating to cash transactions, holding that there was no conclusive evidence to establish that such cash was paid to the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that such an approach is inherently contradictory and unsustainable, inasmuch as the seized document cannot be relied upon in part and rejected in part without any cogent basis. It was contended that once the document is accepted as genuine to the extent of cheque transactions, the entries relating to cash transactions contained therein, which form part of the same document and transaction set, cannot be disregarded without any material to the contrary. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that there was no deposition identifying the assessee in respect of cash transactions and that no specific question was put to Shri Urvil Jani in this regard. It was contended that the seized documents themselves constitute incriminating material and are corroborated by email communication dated 20.10.2016 and statements recorded during search and post-search proceedings, which clearly 11 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b establish that the total investment of Rs. 2.94 crore comprised both cheque and cash components. The ld. DR also assailed the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the seized documents do not establish actual payment of cash to the assessee. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that merely because the document refers to cash transactions, it cannot be presumed that such cash was received by the assessee. It was, therefore, contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the cash component recorded in the seized material while simultaneously accepting the cheque component, and such selective appreciation of evidence renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the ld. DR submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act deserves to be restored.
13. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR), on the other hand, strongly relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and supported the deletion of addition made under section 69A of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has fundamentally misdirected himself in appreciating both the nature of the assessee's business as well as the contents of the seized material. It was contended that the assessee is merely a franchisor of the brand "Tibbs Frankie", whereas the entire investment for setting up and running the franchise outlets is borne by the franchisees. The assessee is entitled only to franchise fees and royalty and does not receive or invest funds for establishing such outlets. Inviting our attention to the email communication placed at page 12 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b nos. 60 and 61 of the assessment order, the ld. AR submitted that the expression "invested" used therein has been misinterpreted by the Assessing Officer. According to the ld. AR, the said expression clearly denotes investment made by Shri Urvil Jani and associated parties in setting up and operating the franchise business, and not any investment made in or paid to the assessee. It was thus submitted that the Assessing Officer has erroneously construed such investment as unexplained money of the assessee.
14. The ld. AR further relied upon the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is solely based on presumption arising from seized documents without any corroborative evidence to establish that any cash was actually received by the assessee.
15. Referring to para 16 of the appellate order, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer has drawn an adverse inference merely because certain cheque payments recorded in the seized document were found to be made to the assessee, and on that basis, presumed that the entries relating to cash transactions in the same document also pertain to the assessee. It was submitted that no independent evidence or surrounding circumstances have been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to support such presumption.
13 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b
16. Further referring to para 17 of the appellate order, the ld. AR submitted that the letter dated 11.03.2016 clearly mentions payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by cheque and does not refer to any cash payment. With regard to the email dated 20.10.2016, it was submitted that the reference to investment of Rs. 1.94 crore in cash cannot be construed as payment made to the assessee. It was contended that such investment relates to expenditure incurred by Shri Urvil Jani and other parties for setting up franchise outlets in pursuance of the franchise arrangement. The ld. AR further drew support from para 18 of the appellate order and submitted that as per the Franchise Agreement dated 07.09.2016, the obligation to incur expenditure for setting up the outlets, including procurement of utensils, equipment, furniture and fixtures, is entirely that of the franchisee. It was emphasized that the assessee, being the franchisor, is not required to incur any such expenditure and has no role in funding the business operations of the franchisees. Referring to para 19 of the appellate order, the ld. AR submitted that Shri Urvil Jani was associated with the master franchisee entity, namely M/s. Fryst Foods (UK) Ltd., and had made investment in that entity along with other partners. It was submitted that such investment was in the capacity of a participant in the franchise venture and not in the capacity of a person making payment to the assessee.
17. Further referring to para 20 of the appellate order, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated that the investment of Rs. 1.94 crore in cash referred to in the email 14 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b communication pertains to expenses incurred for setting up franchise outlets, particularly in overseas locations such as Dubai and London, where the franchise rights had been granted. It was contended that the seized loose sheet also indicates that major part of such payments relates to foreign locations, and the assessee has demonstrated, by producing passport records, that he was not present at those locations on the relevant dates. The ld. AR submitted that in absence of any direct evidence establishing receipt of cash by the assessee, the addition made under section 69A is wholly unsustainable. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the impugned cash transactions belong to the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition, and no interference is called for in the impugned order.
18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material placed on record.
19. At the outset, it is observed that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of entries recorded in seized loose sheets and an email dated 20.10.2016, without bringing any independent corroborative evidence on record to establish that the assessee had actually received any cash. The case of the Assessing Officer rests primarily on the presumption that since certain cheque transactions recorded in the seized documents relate to the assessee, the entries relating 15 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b to cash transactions appearing on the same documents must also pertain to the assessee.
20. In our considered view, such presumption cannot be sustained in law unless supported by cogent material establishing a direct nexus between the assessee and the alleged cash transactions.
21. We find that the ld. CIT(A), after detailed examination of the seized material, has recorded a categorical finding that:
i. The letter dated 11.03.2016 refers only to cheque payments of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and does not mention any cash payment to the assessee;
ii. The email dated 20.10.2016 refers to investment in cash but does not specify that such cash was paid to the assessee;
iii. The franchise business model clearly demonstrates that the obligation to incur expenditure for setting up outlets rests with the franchisees and not with the assessee;
iv. The assessee is merely entitled to franchise fees and royalty and does not receive funds for establishing such outlets;
v. The major part of the alleged cash transactions pertains to overseas locations, and the assessee has demonstrated that he was not present at such locations on the relevant dates.
22. The above findings of the ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any material on record 16 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b to establish that the assessee had, in fact, received the impugned cash amounts.
23. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the expression "investment" used in the email communication has been misinterpreted by the Assessing Officer. A plain reading of the said communication, in the context of the franchise arrangement, indicates that the reference is to investment made by the concerned parties in setting up and operating the franchise business, and not to any payment made to the assessee.
24. Further, the approach of the Assessing Officer in selectively relying upon the seized document for accepting cheque transactions as genuine while treating the cash entries as unexplained income of the assessee, without any independent verification or corroboration, cannot be approved. It is well settled that addition under section 69A cannot be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises. The burden lies on the Revenue to establish, on the basis of material on record, that the assessee is the owner of the unexplained money. In the present case, no such evidence has been brought on record.
25. Insofar as reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on statements recorded during search proceedings is concerned, we find that there is no specific statement identifying or confirming that the impugned cash was paid to the assessee. In absence of 17 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b such direct evidence, the addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of general statements or assumptions.
26. The Revenue has specifically contended that the ld. CIT(A) failed to correctly apply the statutory presumptions available under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act in respect of the seized documents. The Assessing Officer, though not expressly invoking the statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) or 292C of the Act, has proceeded on the premise that the contents of the seized documents are true and has drawn adverse inference against the assessee by placing reliance on the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal.
27. Be that as it may, even assuming that the presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C are applicable, it is a settled position of law that such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and cannot be applied in a mechanical manner. Further, such presumption primarily operates against the person from whose possession the documents are found, and its application against a third party requires independent corroborative material establishing a nexus with such third party. In the present case, the seized documents were found in the course of search conducted in the case of Oneworld Group and not from the possession of the assessee. The Revenue has not brought any independent material on record to establish that the cash entries recorded therein represent actual receipt of money by the 18 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b assessee. On the contrary, the assessee has furnished a plausible explanation, supported by the franchise business model, documentary evidences, and surrounding circumstances, which has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer by way of any independent inquiry. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the addition could not be sustained merely on the basis of entries in the seized documents, and that the presumption, even if available, stands effectively rebutted by the assessee.
28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,84,35,000/- made under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Cross Objection
29. The assessee has raised a legal ground in the cross objection challenging the validity of proceedings under section 153C of the Act.
30. However, since we have upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) on merits and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, the adjudication of the legal ground raised in the cross objection becomes academic in nature.
31. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as infructuous and is not adjudicated.
19 IT A No . 4 3 4 5 / M u m / 2 0 2 5 & C O N o . 2 2 2 / Mu m / 2 0 2 5 J as mi t Am ar j i t Ti b b
32. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 25/03/2026
Dhananjay, Sr.PS
आदे श की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent.
3. सं बंधधत आयकर आयु क्त / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु क्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//
1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai