ITO-6(3)(1), MUMBAI V. SANJAY JAGDISH PATEL, THANE

ITA 2929/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, which had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition pertained to a sum of Rs. 24,53,591 received by the assessee, Sanjay Jagdish Patel, from one Ravi Prakash, who was found to have engaged in suspicious banking activities. The assessee contended that this amount was received for services rendered to M/s Romex International, and similar issues had been previously resolved in favor of the assessee in a related case. The tribunal, referencing the decision in the case of Kamal Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712198 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Kamal Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUKHSAGAR SYAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OM PRAKSH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2929/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1) Room No.524, 5th Floor Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 vs Shri Sanjay Jagdish Patel 601, Siddhachal CHSL, Pkhran Road, Vasant Vihar,Thane-400 601 PAN : AACPP5531F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (SR. DR.) Date of hearing : 24/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the revenue is arising out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax,(Appeals)-5,Mubai[hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 11/02/2025 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The only effective ground raised by the revenue in the present appeal relates to the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer made under section 68 of the Act, by not appreciating the facts of the case. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel 3. We have heard the arguments of both the counsels, perused the materials placed on record, judgements cited before me and also the order passed by the revenue authorities. 4. From the records we noticed that the addition of Rs. 24,53,591/- was made in the hands of assessee on account of money received by the assesse from one Ravi Prakash, who, upon investigation by the Investigation Wing was found to have opened a bank account for a short period of time and deposited huge cash into it. Whereas the assesse had taken a specific stand that this payment has been received on behalf of service rendered to M/s Romex International. The assessee had submitted that the receipt had been appropriated towards the amount payable by M/s Romex International and the source of the same is not relevant for him as there is no legal bar on the same. It was also submitted that similar addition has been made in the case of one of the group concerns, viz. Kamal Clearing an Forwarding Agency Private Limited in which the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 02/01/2025 in ITA No1575/Mum/2024 has already decided the issue in favour of the appellant therein. After having gone through the facts of the present case and also the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Kamal Clearing an Forwarding Agency Private Limited (supra), we find that there is no doubt about the fact that the assessee had already disclosed the receipt from Ravi Prakash as his business receipt on account of receivable from M/s Romex International and moreover, the co-ordinate bench of ITAT has already taken a decision under the similar facts and circumstances. Therefore, while adhering to the principles of judicial consistency and discipline, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue and uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 day of July, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 24/07/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "