ACIT,CIRCLE-20(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. JAYESH UMAKANT MANANIA, MUMBAI

ITA 6927/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs. 70,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging unexplained investment by the assessee, Jayesh Umakant Manania, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The addition was based on electronic images and loose notings retrieved from a third party's mobile phone, which were not in the handwriting of the assessee nor recovered from his possession. The CIT(A) found that there was no corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a similar case involving the same category of seized material.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825173 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Kalyanji Velji HUF, Nimesh Umakant Manania
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: VAISHALI MORE; LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 132; 69; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6927/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT Circle-20(1) Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. Jayesh Umakant Manania 131-6, Mani Bhuvan Jain Society, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 PAN/GIR No. AACPM0547J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR Assessee by Ms. Vaishali More, Ld. AR Date of Hearing 24.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2011–12, whereby the learned CIT(A) deleted Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6927/Mum/2025 Jayesh Umakant Manania the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011–12 on 31.08.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 16,30,172/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, based on information received from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai, arising from a search under section 132 conducted in the case of Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar and a survey under section 133A in the case of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 3. The information forwarded to the Assessing Officer comprised certain images and loose notings allegedly retrieved from the mobile phone (iPhone 6 Plus) of Shri Pankaj Goshar, purportedly recording cash transactions relating to booking of flats in a real estate project of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF.On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 and completed reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 by order dated 22.12.2018, determining total income at Rs. 86,30,172/-, after making an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment, being the alleged cash Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6927/Mum/2025 Jayesh Umakant Manania payment attributable to the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Apart from challenging the addition on merits, the assessee also raised jurisdictional grounds, including the plea that proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 153C.The learned CIT(A) admitted the additional legal grounds and held that the reassessment under section 147 was valid. However, on merits, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/-. 5. While granting relief, the learned CIT(A) recorded that the entire addition was based solely on third-party electronic images and loose notings, the said material was neither in the handwriting of the assessee nor recovered from his possession, there was no corroborative evidence and both Shri Pankaj Goshar and Shri Ajay Vishrani (Karta of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF) had categorically denied receipt of any cash from the assessee. The learned CIT(A) further relied upon the decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench in the cases of Kalyanji Velji HUF and Nimesh Umakant Manania, involving identical seized material, wherein such notings were held to be “dumb documents” incapable of sustaining additions. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 6927/Mum/2025 Jayesh Umakant Manania 6. The Revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the deletion of the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act and has raised following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 70,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant prays that the total tax effect is Rs. 21,63,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of the assessee, which is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs (CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024) but the case falls under the clause 3.1(h) of the CBDT’s Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 7. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012–13 in ITA No. 6588/Mum/2025, order dated 12.12.2025, wherein on identical facts and on the basis of the same category of seized material, the deletion of addition under section 69 was upheld.It was submitted that the nature of evidence, the persons involved, the project, and the allegations are identical, and no distinguishing feature has been brought on record by the Revenue for the year under consideration. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 6927/Mum/2025 Jayesh Umakant Manania 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and examined the material placed on record. It is an undisputed position that the addition in the present case has been made solely on the basis of certain electronic images and loose notings retrieved from the mobile phone of a third party, namely Shri Pankaj Goshar. It is also not in dispute that the material was not seized from the assessee, the alleged payees have denied receipt of cash, and no independent corroborative evidence has been brought on record. 10. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012–13, on identical facts and on the basis of the same category of seized material, has examined this issue in detail and upheld the deletion of the addition. 11. The factual matrix in the year under consideration is identical. The Revenue has not demonstrated any distinguishing feature warranting a departure from the aforesaid decision. Judicial discipline and consistency require that a Co-ordinate Bench decision in the assessee’s own case on identical facts be followed. 12. We therefore find no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) is reasoned, factually supported, and in consonance with binding judicial precedents. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 6927/Mum/2025 Jayesh Umakant Manania 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 29/12/2025 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "