MAYUR PRAFUL BAXI,MUMBAI V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 22(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6847/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Mayur Praful Baxi, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 12,28,814 as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition pertained to unsecured loans from two creditors, M/s Immense Packaging and M/s Shaili Bipin Savala, which the Assessing Officer (AO) initially added due to non-compliance with notices and lack of transaction confirmations. The CIT(A) later deleted the addition for one creditor but sustained it for the other two due to insufficient evidence of their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the necessary details had been provided to the AO and CIT(A) but were overlooked, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAKUL AGRAWAL VIRTUALLY
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAYAK PANDYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Unexplained cash credit; Assessment record
• Section: 68; 131

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6847/MUM/2025 (AY:2010-11) Mayur Praful Baxi, 22, Jeevan Parag, 127, Prabhat colony Road No.2, Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 055. vs. Saroj Wankar, Asst. Com of Income Tax 22 (1), 322, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 012. PAN/GIR No: AEHPB5058C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vinayak Pandya Revenue by Shri Nakul Agrawal (SR DR) (Virtually appear) Date of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A), Udaipur [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 29.08.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, has erred in confirming addition out of loans as unexplained Cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of 12,28,814/-.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 04.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.28,04,777/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 15.10.2010 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6847/MUM/2025 (AY 2010-11) Mayur Praful Baxi 2 declaring total loss of Rs.65,79,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO found that the assessee has shown unsecured loans of Rs.46.30 Lakhs from various parties. He issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to some parties who had extended loans to the assessee. However, 3 creditors, namely, Suraj Supply Co. (Rs.5,27,000/-), Immense Packaging (Rs.5,24,750/-) and Shaili Bipin Savia (Rs.7,04,064/-) did not comply with the notices nor filed confirmation of the transactions. Hence, AO added Rs.17,55,814/- u/s 68 of the Act. He also disallowed interest of Rs.47,556/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). On perusal of the assessment records and submission of the appellant, the CIT(A) found that M/s Suraj Supply Co. had filed copy of PAN, confirmation and bank statement showing the loan transaction through banking channels. Hence, he deleted addition of Rs.5,27,000/-. However, he sustained the addition of the other 2 creditors of Rs.12,28,814/- due to absence of details and documentary evidences during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings to establish the identity of the lendors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and submitted that the appellant had filed loan confirmation with AO and CIT(A) in respect of both M/s Immense Packaging and M/s Shaili Bipin Savala on 28.02.2013. The copy of bank statement Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6847/MUM/2025 (AY 2010-11) Mayur Praful Baxi 3 ITR and confirmations had been duly filed before them. Copies of the same are enclosed in the paper book before the Tribunal. In view of the above facts evidencing that details were available with the AO and CIT(A), the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has discharged his primary duty of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. He requested to delete the addition. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 7. We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. The AO added Rs.17,55,814/- in respect of 3 parties who had given unsecured loans to the assessee during the year under consideration. During appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) found that assessee had already supplied necessary details to the AO in respect of M/s Suraj Supplier Co. Therefore, he deleted the addition of Rs.5,27,000/- but sustained the additions of the other two creditors, i.e., M/s Immense Packaging and Ms. Shaili Bipin Savalal amounting to Rs.12,28,814/-. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and submitted that the details in respect of these two loan creditors had also been given to the AO and the CIT(A), but they have ignored such details and added the unsecured loans, which is unwarranted. We have gone through the details and find that the appellant had, in fact, submitted such details. Therefore, without further discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to consider the details and supporting Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6847/MUM/2025 (AY 2010-11) Mayur Praful Baxi 4 evidences filed by the assessee and decide the case as per law after granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. The CIT(A) shall independently decide the issue in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced on 25.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 25.03.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "