ITO, WARD 2(1) THANE, THANE V. BHARAT MITHALAL JAIN, THANE

ITA 5681/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Department against Bharat Mithalal Jain concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 5,95,00,000 to the assessee's income, which the assessing officer claimed was unexplained income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the sources of the property purchases. The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal contested the CIT(A)'s acceptance of additional evidences without allowing the assessing officer to examine them, as required under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470676 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, I.T. Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA H. PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNMIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 142(1); 250; 48; 22

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5681/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane Vs. Bharat Mithalal Jain 2nd Floor, Shanti Nivas, New Golden East, Phase XIII, 100 Ft. Road, Opp. Hanuman Mandir, Maharashtra-401105. PAN: AAPPJ 1940 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the submissions made by the assessee during appellate proceedings were in the nature of additional evidences and therefore erred in not allowing the AO to examine the additional evidence admitted by them as per the provisions u/s 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. ii. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. iii. The appellant craves have to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary.” ITA No.5681/Mum/2024 Bharat Mithalal Jain A.Y. 2016-17 2 2. The solitary issue in the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is that ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the assessing officer to examine the additional evidences admitted under the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was finalized in the case of the assessee on 29.03.2022. The assessing officer has noticed that assessee has purchased two properties with following description during the year: Sl. No. Property Address Consideration Price 1 Plot noo 48 A Vidyut Nagar-B, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Rs. 3,90,00,000/- 2 Plot no 1 Vidyut Nagar-B, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Rs. 2,05,00,000/- Total Rs. 5,95,00,000/- 3. The AO stated that assessee failed to submit complete bank statement to verify the source of payment made for purchasing the aforesaid properties therefore, the whole amount of Rs. 5,95,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the source of the payment along with copies of bank statement etc. were duly filed before the assessing officer. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel has filed copies of documents and details filed before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings as ITA No.5681/Mum/2024 Bharat Mithalal Jain A.Y. 2016-17 3 placed at page no. 5 to 155 of the paper book relating to purchasing of the two properties. The copies of sanction letter of loan amount of Rs. 4,46,25,000/- obtained from bank of Maharashtra later on transferred to Punjab National Bank and also about the amount of Rs. 1,88,45,000/- withdrawn from the capital account of the assessee in M/s. Sonam Builders wherein assessee was partner having 40% share were filed. The detail of submission filed by the assessee in response to the various notices issued by the assessing officer u/s 142(1) of the Act has been also reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in the order passed u/s 250 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in his finding at page 14 of his order has also reproduced the copy of the housing loan sanctioned by the Bank of Maharashtra to the assessee on 09.02.2016 to the amount of Rs. 4,46,25,000/- and also reproduced the copy of sanction letter from the PNB dated 13.06.2017 which was transferred from Bank of Maharashtra to PNB. The ld. CIT(A) at page no. 17 of his order has also produced the copy of capital account of the assessee in the partnership firm, M/s. Sonam Builders showing withdrawal of amount of Rs. 3,21,17,543/- for the year ended 31.03.2016. The ld. CIT(A) at page no. 18 to 22 of his order has also reproduced the copy of ledger account of the assessee in the partnership firm M/s. Sonam Builders showing the various withdrawal transactions. The ld. CIT(A) has also reproduced the copy of bank statement of Bank of India from which the various payment was made to the seller of the flat along with copies of drafts issued by the Bank of Maharashtra etc. All the supporting evidences showing the sources of payments were also filed before the assessing officer as reflected ITA No.5681/Mum/2024 Bharat Mithalal Jain A.Y. 2016-17 4 in the copy of letter dated 23.03.2022 filed before the assessing officer in response to notice issued u/s 122(1) of the Act dated 22.03.2022 by the assessing officer. However, the AO has not discussed all these supporting relevant evidences filed by the assessee in the assessment order. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that ld. CIT(A) has not accepted any additional evidences under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the solitary ground of appeal filed by the Revenue that ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences. Accordingly, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 06.03.2025 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "