9 ITXA 2109-19-OS..DOC Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2109 OF 2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-27 …Appellant Versus Jain Dalichand Gosalia …Respondent Mr. Arjun Gupta, for the Appellant. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 25th JUNE 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Arjun Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2018, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “I.T.A.T”), Mumbai in Appeal No.2555/ Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10), whereby, the appeal preferred by the Assessee/Respondent was partly allowed. The crux of the mater is that, by the assessment order dated 20th December, 2018, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.38,13,697/- being unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, on account of the bogus purchases. 3. The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals), which had passed order dated 8th February, 2018, directing the Assessing Officer to make addition of 12.5% of the bogus PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2026.06.29 10:22:08 +0530 9 ITXA 2109-19-OS..DOC purchases and restricted the addition to Rs.11,03,894/-. The Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). However, the Assessee had assailed the order dated 8th February, 2018 before the learned I.T.A.T. The appeal was disposed of by order dated 20th December, 2018, by further reducing the addition to 10% on account of the bogus purchase. 4. The Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal against the order dated 20th December, 2018, seeking enhancement of the amount. 5. Mr. Arjun Gupta, learned counsel for the Appellant while addressing arguments has submitted in his usual fairness that Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals). As such, in view of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravindra Bhaskar Deshmukh, (2025) 180 taxmann.com 569, the issue raised in the appeal would be covered against the Revenue. 6. After perusing the observations made in the order of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Ravindra Bhaskar Deshmukh (supra), we are also of the opinion that since the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals), hence, it will be precluded from raising any question regarding the validity of the percentage of addition fixed by the learned Tribunal at 10%. If that be so, in our opinion, there is no substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in this appeal. 9 ITXA 2109-19-OS..DOC 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)