ASHOK KUMAR DEVICHAND JAIN ,MUMBAI V. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3)_, MUMBAI

ITA 4749/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), which upheld the addition of Rs. 12,20,000 to his income for the assessment year 2020-21. This amount was seized during a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at a locker jointly held by the assessee, his wife, and son. The AO made the addition under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act, citing unexplained cash. The assessee contested this, providing evidence of the cash being from legitimate sources, including past savings and unaccounted cash income. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, concluded that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the legitimacy of the cash, leading to the allowance of his appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789875 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Neha Proteins Ltd vs. ACIT, Speed Carries Vs. ITO, Beta Naphtol Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Jupiter Textiles Vs. ITO, Dinesh Goswami Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOURABH S. AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JALAJ PRAKASH
• Section: 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2020-21 Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain 402, Vardhaman Estate, Chaiwada Galli, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 PAN – AACPJ7025J Vs DCIT, CC-4(3) Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jalaj Prakash a/w Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by Shri Sourabh S. Agrawal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeals have been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 11.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the addition of Rs. 12,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. In this regard, I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before me and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, I noticed that assessee is an individual and Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4749/Mum/2025 Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain., Mumbai. on 17.10.2014 a search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of Shri Mumbadevi Safe Vault Locker, where the assessee also has a locker. During the search, cash amounting to Rs. 12,20,000/- was found and seized from the locker of the assessee which was jointly held along with his wife and son. Accordingly after serving the statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee additions u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act was made in the case of assessee. 3. Although assessee challenged the said additions but Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the same by dismissing the appeal. Now before me, it was submitted by Ld. AR that during the search proceedings itself assessee has got recorded his statement, wherein assessee has specifically mentioned that the amount in question belonged to his past savings of family members and also accumulated bank withdrawals and cash income. In order to substantiate the said claim, assessee had also placed on record cash book, profit and loss accounts, capital accounts and balance sheets prepared in the regular course during the assessment proceedings. 4. It is important to mention here that when the AO reopened the case for the A.Y 2014-15 to 2020-21 u/s 153A of the Act then the assessee filed all its income tax returns in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the AO also accepted the returns of income filed by the assessee. There is no doubt regarding the income earned in earlier years as the same had already been accepted by the department. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4749/Mum/2025 Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain., Mumbai. 5. But on the contrary Ld. DR submitted that the AO had rightly made the additions as the assessee could not prove the source of the amount found in the locker. It was further submitted that the cash book submitted by the assessee was also not accepted as the same was not audited. 6. After having heard the parties at length, I found that it is an undisputed fact that cash was found from the locker and in this regard a specific stand has been taken by the assessee that the said amount belonged to his past savings of family members and also accumulated bank withdrawals and cash income. As far as the objection of the AO, with regard to audited cash book not audited is concern, in this regard it was specifically submitted that assessee was not required to get his books audited as he does not fall u/s 44AB of the Act. The assessee had given copy of income tax returns of his wife and son to support that they have sufficient income to support their accumulated cash which was gathered over a long period. Our attention in this regard has been drawn to the statement showing cash availability and the same is reproduced herein below: Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4749/Mum/2025 Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain., Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 4749/Mum/2025 Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain., Mumbai. 7. Since the assessee had submitted cash book for the period 01.04.2016 to 21.10.2019 along with their balance sheet and capital accounts however the AO had not found any infirmity in the same. Thus I am of the view that it is well settled that a disallowance, without any valid reasons and pointing out excessiveness or infirmity is not justified. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decisions of Neha Proteins Ltd vs. ACIT 89 TTJ (Jd) 236, Speed Carries Vs. ITO (1987) 27 TTJ (Ahd) 387, Beta Naphtol Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT 50 TTJ (Ind.) 375, Jupiter Textiles Vs. ITO (2202), 77 TTJ (Jd) 735. Further in the case of Dinesh Goswami Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Indore has held that “once the burden of explanations is discharged, and that once the returns filed by the assessee were accepted, no addition is warranted on account of the money found in the locker of the assessee.” 8. Since the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the judgments cited above, moreover the assessee had already submitted all the details and documents called for by the AO and has justifiably proved on record that the amount found in the locker belonged to him and his family members, therefore additions made by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of presumption are unwarranted and unjust as the revenue authorities had brush aside the documents relied upon by the assessee and submissions made. In these circumstance the order passed by revenue authorities is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed by me above and also keeping in view the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 4749/Mum/2025 Ashok Kumar Devichand Jain., Mumbai. decisions mentioned above, I am of the view that assessee has successfully proved the source of cash amount of Rs. 12,20,000/- therefore the AO is directed to delete the addition. Accordingly the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 25/11/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "