MR ASHOK DHONDU MORE,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 29(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2954/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Ashok Dhondu More, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld an addition of Rs. 78,33,724 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to share transactions. The assessee argued that similar circumstances in a different assessment year (2016-17) did not result in such additions, and provided affidavits suggesting wrongful activities by another individual, Mr. Deepak Rathore, who was allegedly responsible for the transactions. The Tribunal found that these documents were not considered by the CIT(A) and thus restored the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652836 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 2954/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Ashok Dhondu More R. No. 2, Anusaya Bhure Chwal, Kaju Tekdi, Ganesh Nagar, Bhandup, West, Mumbai – 400078. PAN: AIDPM2726N Vs. Income Tax Officer, 29(1)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Shri Bhavya Sandesh Respondent by Shri. Aditya Rai, (SR. D.R.) Date of Hearing 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/03/2024, passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ('Ld. CIT(A)'), for the assessment year 2011-12. 2 ITA No.2954/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 Ashok Dhondu More 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 26/03/2013, declaring total income at Rs. 1,99,210/-. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 20/11/2013. The AO then passed the assessment order on 18/12/2018, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, determining total income at Rs. 80,32,930/-, after making addition u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. 3. Aggrieved by the said addition, assessee preferred appeal, but the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 78,33,724/- u/s. 69 of the Act as “unexplained investment” in relation of share transactions carried out by another person in the name of assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that in another year i.e., for A.Y. 2016-17 under the similar set of circumstances, the AO has allowed the claim of the assessee and has not made any additions. Now, before us, assessee has relied upon the assessment order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2016- 17, wherein no additions were made under the identical 3 ITA No.2954/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 Ashok Dhondu More circumstances which is at page no. 16-19. Apart from this, assessee has also submitted an affidavit filed by one Mr. Deepak Rathore admitting that the wrongful activities were carried out by him and not by the assessee. Moreover, another affidavit has also been filed by the same person Mr. Deepak Rathore further admitting the wrongful activities carried out by him in relation to other innocent persons also regarding which he is also facing criminal trial. It is important to mention here that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has already dismissed the Bail Application of one Mr. Navin Rathore who was also engaged in the wrongful activities. Thus, as per Ld. AR, no additions ought to have been made by the AO in the year under consideration as the assessee is not at fault. 6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the respective parties, the Bench is of the view that the documents referred to above were not filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) more particularly the order of assessment for A.Y. 2016- 17 under the identical facts, wherein, the department has not made any additions even after reopening the case of the assessee. Thus, in our view the ends of justice would be met only if, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration all the above 4 ITA No.2954/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 Ashok Dhondu More referred documents relied upon by the assessee and after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 7. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 16/06/2025 Karishma J. Pawar, Stenographer 5 ITA No.2954/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 Ashok Dhondu More 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 "