ANKIT DINKARRAI BOTADRA,MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 2930/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra, an ex-partner of the partnership firm Ankit Oils, who was erroneously assessed for a cash deposit of Rs. 14,34,500 made during the demonetization period in a bank account that was operated by Ankit Oils. The Income Tax Department had assessed this amount to Botadra's income for the assessment year 2017-18, despite his claims that he was not associated with the firm or the account at the time of the deposits. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes indicates a need for further investigation into the ownership and operation of the bank account in question.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706169 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP MEHTA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 2930/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra, 502, Vishal Sagar, Near Sahakar Market, Patnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400075. Vs. CIT(A), IT Office, Vashi Railway Station Building-400703. PAN NO. AIKPB 8354 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sandeep Mehta Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/06/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: 1. Assessee was an ex Oils till 15th December, 2015. Ankit account in State Bank of India (then called as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before merger and acquisition) bearing account no. 61227282879 during the period 2016 2. The basic details of Authorised person in the bank rec of the Assessee i.e Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra when he was a partner. 3. During the period 2016 was deposited in the above bank account bearing account number 61227282879 by the firm Ankit Oils, however the PAN mentioned of former partner Ankit Botadra who was neither the partner nor had any dealings with the firm nor had any relation with the cash being deposited. 4. Further, as the account belonged to Ankit Oils, it was disclosed in the financial statement financial year in consideration. 5. Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed cash deposit of Rs. 14,34,500/- to the total income of the assesse. 6. As a matter of fact, when the first notice was received, assesse was not awa belonged to the partnership firm where he was earlier a partner. 7. Further, the account status was inoperative making it difficult for the assesse to document the proof that the account number in the question does not belong to him. After a lot of follow gather the bank statement from the bank where the name of account holder for the account number is clearly shown as Ankit Oils and not Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra. 8. Hence, the cash deposited during the demonetization period of Rs. 14,34,500 should not be assessed against the assesse Ankit Botadra. 9. The bank statement of State bank of India (formerly known as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur efore mergers and acquis attached herewith 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that filed his return of income on 05.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2017 1. Assessee was an ex-partner in a partnership firm named Ankit Oils till 15th December, 2015. Ankit Oils used to operate a bank account in State Bank of India (then called as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before merger and acquisition) bearing account no. 61227282879 during the period 2016-17. 2. The basic details of Authorised person in the bank rec of the Assessee i.e Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra when he was a 3. During the period 2016-17, during demonetization period cash was deposited in the above bank account bearing account number 61227282879 by the firm Ankit Oils, however the PAN mentioned of former partner Ankit Botadra who was neither the partner nor had any dealings with the firm nor had any relation with the cash being deposited. 4. Further, as the account belonged to Ankit Oils, it was disclosed in the financial statement and returns of Ankit Oils for the financial year in consideration. 5. Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed cash deposit of Rs. to the total income of the assesse. 6. As a matter of fact, when the first notice was received, assesse was not aware that the bank account mentioned in the notice belonged to the partnership firm where he was earlier a partner. 7. Further, the account status was inoperative making it difficult for the assesse to document the proof that the account number in on does not belong to him. After a lot of follow-ups with the bank, the assesse could finally gather the bank statement from the bank where the name of account holder for the account number is clearly shown as Ankit Oils and not Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra. Hence, the cash deposited during the demonetization period of Rs. 14,34,500 should not be assessed against the assesse Ankit 9. The bank statement of State bank of India (formerly known as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur efore mergers and acquis attached herewith for perusal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the filed his return of income on 05.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2017 Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra 2 ITA No. 2930/MUM/2025 partner in a partnership firm named Ankit Oils used to operate a bank account in State Bank of India (then called as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before merger and acquisition) bearing account 2. The basic details of Authorised person in the bank records were of the Assessee i.e Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra when he was a 17, during demonetization period cash was deposited in the above bank account bearing account number 61227282879 by the firm Ankit Oils, however the PAN was mentioned of former partner Ankit Botadra who was neither the partner nor had any dealings with the firm nor had any relation 4. Further, as the account belonged to Ankit Oils, it was disclosed and returns of Ankit Oils for the 5. Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed cash deposit of Rs. 6. As a matter of fact, when the first notice was received, assesse re that the bank account mentioned in the notice belonged to the partnership firm where he was earlier a partner. 7. Further, the account status was inoperative making it difficult for the assesse to document the proof that the account number in ups with the bank, the assesse could finally gather the bank statement from the bank where the name of account holder for the account number is clearly shown as Ankit Hence, the cash deposited during the demonetization period of Rs. 14,34,500 should not be assessed against the assesse Ankit 9. The bank statement of State bank of India (formerly known as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur efore mergers and acquisition) is the assessee had filed his return of income on 05.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 2,98,820/ limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax addition of Rs. 14,34,500/ bank account during the demoneti 3. Aggrieved by this the CIT(A) who affirmed the addition of Rs. 14,34,500/ documentary evidences on the plea of the assessee taken that the relevant bank account no. 61227282879 maint Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur does not belong to him extract of the CIT(A)’s order is as under: “5. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, assessment order and material available on record. All the grounds of the appe In this case the proceedings u/s 144 of the Act were finalized making addition of Rs. 14,34,500/ cash deposited by the appellant during the demonetization period i.e. on 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in the bank A/c No. 61227282879 maintained in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. The appellant in ground no.1 of the appeal has stated that bank account no. 61227282879 in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur does not belong to him. During the appellate various notices were issued to has not replied to the any of the notices mentioned in para 5. To substantiate the claim that the bank account mentioned in the assessment order does not belong to the appellant no documentary proof has been submitted. Further, documentary proof has also been submitted by the appellant to substantiate his claim of not opening or operating bank account no. 61227282879. declaring total income of Rs. 2,98,820/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. tax Act, 1961( in short the Act) after making an addition of Rs. 14,34,500/- on the premise of cash deposited during the demonetization period. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee challenged it before affirmed the addition of Rs. 14,34,500/ documentary evidences on the plea of the assessee taken that the relevant bank account no. 61227282879 maintained with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur does not belong to him extract of the CIT(A)’s order is as under:- “5. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, assessment order and material available on record. All the grounds of the appeal are interconnected. In this case the proceedings u/s 144 of the Act were finalized making addition of Rs. 14,34,500/- on account of cash deposited by the appellant during the demonetization period i.e. on 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in the bank A/c 227282879 maintained in State Bank of Bikaner & The appellant in ground no.1 of the appeal has stated that bank account no. 61227282879 in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur does not belong to him. During the appellate various notices were issued to the appellant. The appellant has not replied to the any of the notices mentioned in para 5. To substantiate the claim that the bank account mentioned in the assessment order does not belong to the appellant no documentary proof has been submitted. Further, documentary proof has also been submitted by the appellant to substantiate his claim of not opening or operating bank account no. 61227282879. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra 3 ITA No. 2930/MUM/2025 The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. after making an on the premise of cash deposited in the , the assessee challenged it before affirmed the addition of Rs. 14,34,500/- for want of documentary evidences on the plea of the assessee taken that the ained with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur does not belong to him. The relevant “5. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, assessment order and material available on record. All the In this case the proceedings u/s 144 of the Act were on account of cash deposited by the appellant during the demonetization period i.e. on 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in the bank A/c 227282879 maintained in State Bank of Bikaner & The appellant in ground no.1 of the appeal has stated that bank account no. 61227282879 in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur does not belong to him. During the appellate the appellant. The appellant has not replied to the any of the notices mentioned in para 5. To substantiate the claim that the bank account mentioned in the assessment order does not belong to the appellant no documentary proof has been submitted. Further, no documentary proof has also been submitted by the appellant to substantiate his claim of not opening or operating bank The appellant in ground no. 3 of the appeal has submitted that online response regarding the cash deposited was submitted stating that the account does not belong to the assessee. But again, no documentary proof has been submitted by the appellant till date to establish his claim. Hence, in absence of the documentary evidences it is not possible to give the grounds of the appeal are dismissed.” 4. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the lower authorities, material on record and the arguments made by appellant and revenue. filed before us is that the amount of Rs. 14,34,500/ deposits during the F.Y.2016 of India (then called as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before merger and acquisition) bearing account n belonged to him and hence, no addition ought to have been made. In the year under consideration, during the demonetization period, cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 14,34,500/ 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in the aforesaid facts as explained by the ld. AR of the assessee are that bank account does not belong to him but it belongs to the partnership firm – M/s. Ankit Oils till 15th December 2015. In support of this, our drawn to the Admission cum Retirement Deed. He further explained that the basic details (PAN) of Authorised person in bank records were of the assessee i.e. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra partner and at the time of opening the b The appellant in ground no. 3 of the appeal has submitted that online response regarding the cash deposited was submitted stating that the account does not belong to the assessee. But again, no documentary proof has been submitted by the appellant till date to establish his claim. Hence, in absence of the documentary evidences it is not possible to give any relief to the appellant. Accordingly, all the grounds of the appeal are dismissed.” We have carefully perused the orders passed by the lower authorities, material on record and the arguments made by appellant and revenue. The issue raised in the gro filed before us is that the amount of Rs. 14,34,500/- during the F.Y.2016-17 in the bank account of State Bank of India (then called as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before merger and acquisition) bearing account no. 61227282879 does not belonged to him and hence, no addition ought to have been made. In the year under consideration, during the demonetization period, s aggregating to Rs. 14,34,500/- were made on 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in the aforesaid bank account. facts as explained by the ld. AR of the assessee are that bank account does not belong to him but it belongs to the M/s. Ankit Oils, wherein he was an ex December 2015. In support of this, our attention was also drawn to the Admission cum Retirement Deed. He further explained that the basic details (PAN) of Authorised person in bank records were of the assessee i.e. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra, partner and at the time of opening the bank account of the firm. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra 4 ITA No. 2930/MUM/2025 The appellant in ground no. 3 of the appeal has submitted that online response regarding the cash deposited in 2016 was submitted stating that the account does not belong to the assessee. But again, no documentary proof has been submitted by the appellant till date to establish his claim. Hence, in absence of the documentary evidences it is not any relief to the appellant. Accordingly, all We have carefully perused the orders passed by the lower authorities, material on record and the arguments made by The issue raised in the grounds of appeal - being the cash in the bank account of State Bank of India (then called as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before o. 61227282879 does not belonged to him and hence, no addition ought to have been made. In the year under consideration, during the demonetization period, were made on bank account. The facts as explained by the ld. AR of the assessee are that the said bank account does not belong to him but it belongs to the wherein he was an ex-partner attention was also drawn to the Admission cum Retirement Deed. He further explained that the basic details (PAN) of Authorised person in bank records when he was a ank account of the firm. The ld. AR therefore argued that since the assessee was neither the partner nor had any dealing with the said firm nor had any relation with the cash deposited during the year under consideration, no addition ought to have been mad submits that when the first notice was received, he was not aware that the bank account number mentioned in the notice belonged to the partnership firm and was in a disbelief that his PAN was utilised as a matter of cyber frau submitted that the said account does not belonged to him. Further, it is stated that the account status was inoperative at the time of assessment proceedings making it difficult for him to document the proof that the account numbe him. It was only after several follow finally gather the bank statement where the name of account holder for the account number is clearly shown as Ankit Oils and not that of the assessee. 4.1 We find that the assessee has remained non the lower authorities and has not submitted any relevant documentary evidences to substantiate his contentions. Accordingly, in light of justice, we find it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the file the necessary evidences before him. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The ld. AR therefore argued that since the assessee was neither the partner nor had any dealing with the said firm nor had any relation with the cash deposited during the year under consideration, no addition ought to have been made in his hands. The appellant submits that when the first notice was received, he was not aware that the bank account number mentioned in the notice belonged to the partnership firm and was in a disbelief that his PAN was utilised as a matter of cyber fraud precisely and hence had submitted that the said account does not belonged to him. Further, it is stated that the account status was inoperative at the time of assessment proceedings making it difficult for him to document the proof that the account number in the notice does not belonged to him. It was only after several follow-ups with the bank, he could finally gather the bank statement where the name of account holder for the account number is clearly shown as Ankit Oils and not that We find that the assessee has remained non-responsive before the lower authorities and has not submitted any relevant documentary evidences to substantiate his contentions. Accordingly, in light of justice, we find it fit to restore the matter he file of the Assessing Officer and direct the assessee to file the necessary evidences before him. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra 5 ITA No. 2930/MUM/2025 The ld. AR therefore argued that since the assessee was neither the partner nor had any dealing with the said firm nor had any relation with the cash deposited during the year under consideration, no e in his hands. The appellant submits that when the first notice was received, he was not aware that the bank account number mentioned in the notice belonged to the partnership firm and was in a disbelief that his PAN was d precisely and hence had submitted that the said account does not belonged to him. Further, it is stated that the account status was inoperative at the time of assessment proceedings making it difficult for him to document the r in the notice does not belonged to ups with the bank, he could finally gather the bank statement where the name of account holder for the account number is clearly shown as Ankit Oils and not that responsive before the lower authorities and has not submitted any relevant documentary evidences to substantiate his contentions. Accordingly, in light of justice, we find it fit to restore the matter Assessing Officer and direct the assessee to file the necessary evidences before him. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2025 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra 6 ITA No. 2930/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /06/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "