DHANUBEN MADHUBHAI PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI V. WARD 42(1)(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

ITA 3602/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Jitendra Prajapati, the legal heir of the late Dhanuben Madhubhai Prajapati, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Ahmedabad, which upheld the addition of Rs. 6,75,000 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2017-18. This addition was based on cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,50,000 made during the demonetisation period from November 9, 2016, to December 31, 2016, into the assessee's account at Bank of India. The primary legal issue was the applicability of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained money, and whether the additions were justified under the circumstances of the demonetisation period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788486 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAGIRATH RAMAWAT; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVIN SOLANKI; AR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3602/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Jitendra Prajapati [Legal Heir of Late Dhanuben Madhubhai Prajapati] Shop No. 3, Diwali Darshan M G Road, Borivali East Mumbai – 400066 PAN: AABPP2255P (legal heir) PAN: AGRPP4118K (Dhanuben Madhubhai Prajapati) Vs. Ward – 42(1)(2) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Bhavin Solanki, A/R Respondent by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. D/R Date of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order dated 24/03/2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A) -1, Ahmedabad, [hereinafter ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) for assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee expired on 29/10/2020 and, therefore, the legal heir is representing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He submitted that, the addition made by the Ld. AO is based on cash deposits made during the demonetisation period amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/-. 2.1. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee maintained her account with Bank of India and had deposited the said amount Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 3602/Mum/2025 during the period 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee offered Nil income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration and, therefore, the addition was made in hands of the assessee amounting to Rs. 6,75,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced by both the sides in light of the records placed before us. 4.1. It is noted that the authorities below has not considered the following CBDT Circulars/Instructions :- a) Instruction 3/2017, issued on February 21, 2017. b) Instruction No. 4/2017 dated 3rd March, 2017. c) Circular F. No. 225/363/2017 – ITA. II, dated 15/11/2017. d) Circular F.no.225/145/2019-ITA.II dated 09/08/2019. 4.2. The Ld. AO is directed to verify the addition based on demonetized cash based on the applicable Circular specific to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish PAN and other details of the depositors if circumstances so warrant, in order to assist the Ld. AO to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, Grounds raised by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 3602/Mum/2025 In the result, appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai Dated: 24/11/2025 SC Sr. P.S. 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 "