Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 Pune v. Suresh Kumar Lakhotia (Ay 2018 19 ITA 24 Pun 2024)

PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Pallavi PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2025.12.12 18:03:11 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.743 OF 2025 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5 Pune

...Petitioner

Versus

Suresh Kumar Lakhotia

...Respondent

WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL(IT)(ST) NO. 37548 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37605 OF 2025 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL(IT)(ST) NO. 37548 OF 2025 ______________________________________________________ Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Appellant in ITXA/743/2025 and for Respondent - Revenue in IA(L)/37605/2025 and IA(L)/39111/2025.

Mr. Rahul Sarda a/w Avdhoot Prabhu and Sejal Joshi i/b. Lex Services, for Applicant/Appellant in IA(L)/37605/2025, IA(L)/39111/2025 and Appeal(L)/37548/2025 and for Respondent in Appeal/743/2025.

______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 11 December 2025 P.C.:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties in both these Appeals.

2.

Both these Appeals challenge the ITAT's order of 27 September 2024 disposing of Revenue's Appeal No.24 of

2024.

3.

The ITAT's order partly allows Revenue's Appeal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the portion which does not entirely allows its Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the portion which partly allows the Revenue's Appeal. Hence, these Appeals by the Revenue and the Assessee against the ITAT's order of 27 September 2024.

4.

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the ITAT's order is vitiated by perversity because most of the contentions of either parties have not been considered. They point out that the ITAT has not adverted to the documentary evidence on record. On this ground, the learned counsel submit that it would be appropriate if the ITAT's order dated 27 September 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the ITAT for disposing of Appeal ITAT No.24 of 2024 afresh and in accordance with law.

5.

We have perused the impugned order and we are satisfied that both these Appeals involve the substantial question of law as to whether the decision of the ITAT is vitiated by perversity on account of non-consideration of documentary evidence on record.

6.

Accordingly, we admit these Appeals on the above question and proceed to dispose of the Appeal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 7.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not address all

the issues raised by the parties and also does not advert to the documentary evidence on record. Both the parties are justified being aggrieved by the impugned order and therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the ITAT for deciding the Revenue's Appeal ITA No.24 of 2024 afresh and in accordance with law.

8.

Accordingly, both the Appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 27 September 2024 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to ITAT for deciding the Revenue's ITA Appeal No.24/PUN/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19 afresh and in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties to present their case. 9.

All contentions of all parties on merits are left open for the ITAT to examine in the first instance. Both these appeals are disposed of with the above terms without any costs order. Interim Application does not survive and is disposed of.

10.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J.)