DAYANAND DAMODAR PATIL,VIRAR WEST V. ASSESSING OFFICER, QURESHI MANSION THANE

ITA 4087/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dayanand Damodar Patil against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeal included the addition of unexplained credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of a deduction claimed under chapter VI-A. The assessee contested the additions made to his income, which were based on unexplained credits in his bank account and the lack of documentary evidence for certain deductions. However, the Tribunal noted that a similar appeal had already been remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, rendering the current appeal infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471291 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: . R. R. MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAVITA NABERA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4087/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dayanand Damodar Patil Swagat Buglow, Near Hira Vidyalay, Vartak Ward, Virar (West), Thane- 401303 PAN: ABQPP8445H Vs. Qureshi Mansion Gokhale Road, Thane- 400602. Appellant : Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Kavita Nabera Revenue by : Shri.. R. R. Makwana, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeals is filed by the assessee against order dated 11/06/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi for assessment years 2015- 16 on following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1: Addition made u/s 68 on account of Unexplained Credits Page | 2 ITA No.4087/MUM/2024 Dayanand Damodar Patil; A. Y.2015-16 The learned officer has erred by making the addition of Rs.2,21,86,186/- as unexplained credits for the period AY: 2015-16 u/s-68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A). The said addition made and confirmed by the officer is bad-in-law, as the sources from where the addition made was from credits appearing in the bank account. The total credit appearing in the bank statement throughout the year was Rs. 3,13,90,855/- out of which the assessee in the return of income has only considered receipts only upto Rs. 92,04,669/- and balance receipts which is the difference between Rs. 3,13,90,855/- and Rs. 92,04,669/- which amounting to Rs. 2,21,86,186/- has been remained unexplained credits and treated as Unexplained credits u/s-68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No. 2: Addition made deduction claimed under chapter VI-A of sum of Rs. 1,31,730/- The learned officer has erred by making addition of Rs. 1,31,730/-. The only reason for making the addition was the absence of supporting documentary evidence. The only reason for making of the addition was No proof whatsoever has been furnished in support of the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,31,730/-. Ground No. 3: Re-opening is bad-in-law In the present case, the learned assessing officer has re-open the assessment merely based upon data available on the Insight Portal, during the relevant period F.Y. 2014-15, this case was flagged by the Investigation wing on the Insight Portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU information. The bank statements were perused by the officers of Inv. Wing which showed substantial credits in the Bank A/cs. However, re-opening just merely for verifying the credits entries in bank is bad-in-law.” 2. The Ld.AR submitted that inadvertently the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal against the impugned order. He submitted that assessee for the year under consideration has filed two appeals against the same impugned order before this Tribunal out of which one appeal was listed on 12/11/2024 in ITA No.4243/M/2024 which was heard on 12/11/2024. It is submitted that this Tribunal has remanded the appeal to the Ld. Page | 3 ITA No.4087/MUM/2024 Dayanand Damodar Patil; A. Y.2015-16 CIT(A) to pass order on merits after considering the evidences filed by the assessee. He submitted that under such circumstances the present appeal in ITA No.4087/M/2024 become infructous. Based on the above submissions, the present appeal in ITA No.4087/M/2024 filed by the assessee against the same impugned Ld. CIT(A) order is dismissed as infructous. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands Dismissed. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands Dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Mumbai, Dated: 22.11.2024 Snehal C. Ayare, Stenographer/ Dragon Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Ld.DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT //True Copy// Page | 4 ITA No.4087/MUM/2024 Dayanand Damodar Patil; A. Y.2015-16 BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "