MR. JATIN HARISH SOTTA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

ITA 1916/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions pertained to unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2,86,80,200 in the bank account of Jitendra K. Palan, which were allegedly linked to the appellant. The Tribunal examined the validity of the reassessment under section 147 and the subsequent additions made under section 69A. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on tangible material and not merely on conjecture, thus upholding the reopening of the assessment. However, it also noted the need for a detailed examination of the source of the cash deposits and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh look.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793400 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1997) (223 ITA 480 MP), New Dewan Oil Mills Vs. CIT, CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461), CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd, Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT, M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMESH CHOTHANI
• Keywords: Business income; Reassessment proceedings; Rule of consistency; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Tangible material; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 131; 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, A-16, Ajanta Apartment, Murar Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. Vs. ITO Ward 26(1)(7), C-41 to C-43, G Block, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AQFPS 6009 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nimesh Chothani, CA Revenue by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in passing the order u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act assessing total income at Rs.2,86,80,200 Printed from counselvise.com 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstanc erred in confirming the additions made of Rs. 2,86,80,200/ under section 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la erred in not appreciating the facts narrated by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order and also not appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings in a proper perspective, ignoring the facts that cash deposi Rs.2,86.80,200 in the bank account of Jitendra K Palan and not in the bank account of the appellant 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, failed to appreciate the arose in the appellant's own case on the same set of facts for A.Y.2013 A.Y. 2013 assessing officer has not made such additions in the appella 2. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee additional ground, which is reproduced as under: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in re assessment under section 147 merely based on un un-confronted statements of third party without there being any tangible material to form any belief about escapement of taxable income of the Appellant for the relevant Assessment Year. Reopening in absence of any 'tangible material' is bad in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 3. Briefly stated, fac his return of income under section 139 of the Income (hereinafter “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012 Assessing Officer received an i Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that a proprietary concern, ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in confirming the additions made of Rs. 2,86,80,200/ under section 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la erred in not appreciating the facts narrated by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order and also not appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings in a proper perspective, ignoring the facts that cash deposits made of Rs.2,86.80,200 in the bank account of Jitendra K Palan and not in the bank account of the appellant The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, failed to appreciate the fact that an identical issue arose in the appellant's own case on the same set of facts for A.Y.2013-14 and while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14, after considering the same facts, the assessing officer has not made such additions in the appellant's own case. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee which is reproduced as under: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the ion of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in re assessment under section 147 merely based on un-corroborated & confronted statements of third party without there being any tangible material to form any belief about escapement of taxable ome of the Appellant for the relevant Assessment Year. Reopening in absence of any 'tangible material' is bad in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee his return of income under section 139 of the Income (hereinafter “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012 Assessing Officer received an information from the office of the Dy. tax (Investigation) that a proprietary concern, Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 2 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) es of the case and in law erred in confirming the additions made of Rs. 2,86,80,200/- under section 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in not appreciating the facts narrated by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order and also not appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of appellate proceedings in a proper perspective, ts made of Rs.2,86.80,200 in the bank account of Jitendra K Palan The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in fact that an identical issue arose in the appellant's own case on the same set of facts 14 and while completing the assessment for 14, after considering the same facts, the assessing officer has not made such additions in the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed an In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the ion of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in re-opening the corroborated & confronted statements of third party without there being any tangible material to form any belief about escapement of taxable ome of the Appellant for the relevant Assessment Year. Reopening in absence of any 'tangible material' is bad in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. ts of the case are that assessee did not file his return of income under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. The nformation from the office of the Dy. tax (Investigation) that a proprietary concern, Printed from counselvise.com M/s Neelay Packers and Movers K. Palan, was engaged in the business of logistic services like relocating, moving of housing effects etc and of said firm reflected cash deposits aggregating to In his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on 11.02.2019, Shri Jitendra K. Palan categorically admitted that nearly 92% of the said cash deposits were mad Shri Jatin Harish Sotta, and that such amounts were immediately transferred through RTGS to concerns, namely International and M/s D.D.M. Impex 3.1 Based on the said tangible information, the Assessin recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under section 148 on 31.03.2019. No return was filed in response, nor were repeated notices issued under section 142(1) 17.07.2019, 23.10.2019 and 12.11.2019 were absence of any explanation for the cash deposits, assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making addition of 3.2 The assessee carri several statutory opportunities, no material evidence was produced to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the addition, holding assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus of explaining the ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 M/s Neelay Packers and Movers, in the name of one Shri Jitendra was engaged in the business of logistic services like relocating, moving of housing effects etc and current bank account of said firm reflected cash deposits aggregating to ₹ In his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on 11.02.2019, Shri Jitendra K. Palan categorically admitted that nearly 92% of the said cash deposits were made by the assessee, Shri Jatin Harish Sotta, and that such amounts were immediately transferred through RTGS to concerns, namely M/s D.D.M. Impex, owned by the assessee. Based on the said tangible information, the Assessin recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under section 148 on 31.03.2019. No return was filed in response, nor were es issued under section 142(1) on 17.07.2019, 23.10.2019 and 12.11.2019 were complied with. In absence of any explanation for the cash deposits, assessment was under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making addition of ₹2,86,80,200/–. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. However, despite several statutory opportunities, no material evidence was produced to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), med the addition, holding inter to discharge the primary onus of explaining the Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 3 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 , in the name of one Shri Jitendra was engaged in the business of logistic services like current bank account ₹2,86,80,220/–. In his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on 11.02.2019, Shri Jitendra K. Palan categorically admitted that e by the assessee, Shri Jatin Harish Sotta, and that such amounts were immediately transferred through RTGS to concerns, namely M/s Mahendra , owned by the assessee. Based on the said tangible information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under section 148 on 31.03.2019. No return was filed in response, nor were on 24.06.2019, complied with. In absence of any explanation for the cash deposits, assessment was under section 144 read with section 147 of the ed the matter in appeal. However, despite several statutory opportunities, no material evidence was produced to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia that the to discharge the primary onus of explaining the Printed from counselvise.com nature and source of deposits which had, in fact, travelled to his own concerns. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced under : “5.1. The order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 05.12.2019 as well as the grounds of appeal and statement of facts and written submission filed by the appellant has been carefully considered. In essence, all the substantial grounds taken by the appellant relate to the action of the Ld. AO regarding addition of Rs.2,86,80,200/ 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant assessee was given several opportunities vide notice of hearing/letter dated 17.10.2023, 27.10.2023, 06.11.2023 and 13.12.2024 to represent t along with supporting document(s) if any. Appellant has submitted some details three times, which is not related to strengthening the grounds of appeal. However, the appellant did not avail the opportunities to count appellant's reluctancy to comply to the notices leads to the presumption that he has either nothing to explain in this regard or is not interested to continue the appellate proceeding and thus has no objection at pre the impugned assessment order. The reason for the addition was specifically mentioned in detail in the assessment order but the appellant failed to upload any evidence or submission in support of the grounds of 5.3 It is the well DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT\" which means the law will help only those who are vigilant. Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim once right she/he mu be watchful of his/her rights. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are eligible for the benefits of the law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. In this connection, the various judicious the Hon'ble Courts may be cited. In the case of the Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1997) (223 ITA 480 MP) the Hon'ble M.P. High Court held that, \"If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to a hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.\" Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Dewan Oil Mills V ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 nature and source of deposits which had, in fact, travelled to his The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced 5.1. The order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 05.12.2019 as well as the grounds of appeal and statement of facts and written submission filed by the appellant has been carefully considered. In essence, all the substantial grounds taken by the appellant relate to the action of the Ld. AO regarding tion of Rs.2,86,80,200/- on account of cash deposit. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant assessee was given several opportunities vide notice of hearing/letter dated 17.10.2023, 27.10.2023, 06.11.2023 and 13.12.2024 to represent the case by uploading written submission along with supporting document(s) if any. Appellant has submitted some details three times, which is not related to strengthening the grounds of appeal. However, the appellant did not avail the opportunities to counter the findings of the Ld. AO and hence appellant's reluctancy to comply to the notices leads to the presumption that he has either nothing to explain in this regard or is not interested to continue the appellate proceeding and thus has no objection at present regarding addition made by the Ld. AO in the impugned assessment order. The reason for the addition was specifically mentioned in detail in the assessment order but the appellant failed to upload any evidence or submission in support of the grounds of appeal. 5.3 It is the well-settled dictum of law \"VIGILENTIBUS, NO DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT\" which means the law will help only those who are vigilant. Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim once right she/he mu be watchful of his/her rights. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are eligible for the benefits of the law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. In this connection, the various judicious the Hon'ble Courts may be cited. In the case of the Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1997) (223 ITA 480 MP) the Hon'ble M.P. High Court held that, \"If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.\" Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Dewan Oil Mills Vs. CIT reported in Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 4 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 nature and source of deposits which had, in fact, travelled to his The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as 5.1. The order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 05.12.2019 as well as the grounds of appeal and statement of facts and written submission filed by the appellant has been carefully considered. In essence, all the substantial grounds taken by the appellant relate to the action of the Ld. AO regarding on account of cash deposit. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant assessee was given several opportunities vide notice of hearing/letter dated 17.10.2023, 27.10.2023, 06.11.2023 and he case by uploading written submission along with supporting document(s) if any. Appellant has submitted some details three times, which is not related to strengthening the grounds of appeal. However, the appellant did not avail the er the findings of the Ld. AO and hence appellant's reluctancy to comply to the notices leads to the presumption that he has either nothing to explain in this regard or is not interested to continue the appellate proceeding and thus has sent regarding addition made by the Ld. AO in the impugned assessment order. The reason for the addition was specifically mentioned in detail in the assessment order but the appellant failed to upload any evidence or submission in support settled dictum of law \"VIGILENTIBUS, NO DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT\" which means the law will help only those who are vigilant. Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim once right she/he must be watchful of his/her rights. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are eligible for the benefits of the law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. In this connection, the various judicious decisions of the Hon'ble Courts may be cited. In the case of the Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1997) (223 ITA 480 MP) the Hon'ble M.P. High Court held that, \"If the party, at ppear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.\" Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High s. CIT reported in Printed from counselvise.com (2008) 296ITR495 (P&H) had returned the reference unanswered, since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477, 478), the Hon'ble Supreme \"appeal does not mean, the mere filing of the memo of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same\". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd on 02.09.2011 in ITA No.798 of 2009 held that a negli should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of the amount involved is high. The necessary course of action is to draw an adverse inference, otherwise, it would amount to giving a premium to the appellant for his negligenc non-cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose the falsity and non-genuineness of his claim. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT (ITA 19.12.2011) has dismissed the appeal for non inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 5.4 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/S Chemipol vs Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 may further be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Court clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, inherently possesses the power to di 5.5 On merits also, the appellant has no case. The main ground taken by the appellant relates to addition of Rs.2,86,80,200/ account of cash depositof the I.T. Act, 1961. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellan for AY 2012-13 though he had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,86,80,200/ the FY 2011- issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act an the appellant had not filed return of income for AY 2012 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.2,86,80,200/ not file return of income for the subject assessment year. Further, the appellant did not comply with the notice issued by the Ld. AO on several occasions during assessment proceedings and in absence of proper explanation regarding nature deposit amounting to Rs.2,86,80,200/ the entire amount as cash deposit. 6. During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant failed to explain the grounds taken against the issues. The reason for ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 (2008) 296ITR495 (P&H) had returned the reference unanswered, since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477, 478), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that \"appeal does not mean, the mere filing of the memo of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same\". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd on 02.09.2011 in ITA No.798 of 2009 held that a negligent appellant should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of the amount involved is high. The necessary course of action is to draw an adverse inference, otherwise, it would amount to giving a premium to the appellant for his negligence. When the appellant is cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose the falsity and genuineness of his claim. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.2006/Del/ 2011 dated 19.12.2011) has dismissed the appeal for non-attending hearing inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 5.4 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 may further be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Court clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. 5.5 On merits also, the appellant has no case. The main ground taken by the appellant relates to addition of Rs.2,86,80,200/ account of cash depositof the I.T. Act, 1961. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant had not filed return of income 13 though he had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,86,80,200/- in his current Bank account maintained during -12. In view of the same the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and in response to the said notice the appellant had not filed return of income for AY 2012 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.2,86,80,200/- in his bank account during FY 2011 not file return of income for the subject assessment year. Further, the appellant did not comply with the notice issued by the Ld. AO on several occasions during assessment proceedings and in absence of proper explanation regarding nature & source of cash deposit amounting to Rs.2,86,80,200/-, the Ld. AO added back the entire amount as cash deposit. 6. During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant failed to explain the grounds taken against the issues. The reason for Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 5 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 (2008) 296ITR495 (P&H) had returned the reference unanswered, since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 Court held that \"appeal does not mean, the mere filing of the memo of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same\". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd on gent appellant should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of the amount involved is high. The necessary course of action is to draw an adverse inference, otherwise, it would amount to giving a e. When the appellant is cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose the falsity and genuineness of his claim. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case No.2006/Del/ 2011 dated attending hearing inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 5.4 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 may further be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Court clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, smiss the case in default. 5.5 On merits also, the appellant has no case. The main ground taken by the appellant relates to addition of Rs.2,86,80,200/- on account of cash depositof the I.T. Act, 1961. It is seen from the t had not filed return of income 13 though he had made cash deposits to the tune of in his current Bank account maintained during 12. In view of the same the case was reopened by d in response to the said notice the appellant had not filed return of income for AY 2012- 13. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Y 2011-12 but did not file return of income for the subject assessment year. Further, the appellant did not comply with the notice issued by the Ld. AO on several occasions during assessment proceedings and in & source of cash , the Ld. AO added back 6. During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant failed to explain the grounds taken against the issues. The reason for Printed from counselvise.com addition was clearly mentioned in the assessment order. However, the appellant made no effort to counter the findings of the Ld. AO either by uploading relevant document(s) or explaining the matter in detail and chose to remain silent about the issue. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant failed to respond against the opportunities given by the Ld. AO to explain the nature and source of cash deposit during FY 2011 assessment was completed as best judgement as u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant was provided several opportunities during assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.07.2019, 23.10.2019 and 12.11.2019 and a final show cause notice dated 20.11.20 notices. During the course of appellate proceedings also, the appellant did not come forward to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in spite of several opportunities being provided to him. 6.1 In view of Ld. AO and the same is upheld accordingly. Therefore, all the substantial grounds taken by the appellant 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Pape Book containing pages 1 to 58, containing statement of Sh. Jitendra K. Palan recorded under section 131 of the Act. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) filed a copy of the assessment order in the case of Jitendra K. Palan for the assessment year 2012 6. As far as additional ground raised by the assessee is concerned, same being in the nature of purely legal ground , going to root of matter and not requiring investigation of fresh facts, admitted for adjudication. 7. We have heard rival additional ground challenged. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 s clearly mentioned in the assessment order. However, the appellant made no effort to counter the findings of the Ld. AO either by uploading relevant document(s) or explaining the matter in detail and chose to remain silent about the issue. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant failed to respond against the opportunities given by the Ld. AO to explain the nature and source of cash deposit during FY 2011-12 and accordingly assessment was completed as best judgement as u/s 144 r.w.s. the I.T. Act, 1961. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant was provided several opportunities during assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.07.2019, 23.10.2019 and 12.11.2019 and a final show cause notice dated 20.11.2019, however, he never complied with those notices. During the course of appellate proceedings also, the appellant did not come forward to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in spite of several opportunities being provided to 6.1 In view of this, I find no reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. AO and the same is upheld accordingly. Therefore, all the substantial grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Pape ing pages 1 to 58, containing statement of Sh. Jitendra K. Palan recorded under section 131 of the Act. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) filed a copy of the assessment order in the case of Jitendra K. Palan ear 2012-13. As far as additional ground raised by the assessee is same being in the nature of purely legal ground , going to root of matter and not requiring investigation of fresh facts, admitted for adjudication. We have heard rival submission of the parties in respect to t additional ground challenged. We find that assessee has not filed Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 6 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 s clearly mentioned in the assessment order. However, the appellant made no effort to counter the findings of the Ld. AO either by uploading relevant document(s) or explaining the matter in detail and chose to remain silent about the issue. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant failed to respond against the opportunities given by the Ld. AO to explain the nature and 12 and accordingly assessment was completed as best judgement as u/s 144 r.w.s. the I.T. Act, 1961. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant was provided several opportunities during assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.07.2019, 23.10.2019 and 12.11.2019 and a final show cause 19, however, he never complied with those notices. During the course of appellate proceedings also, the appellant did not come forward to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in spite of several opportunities being provided to this, I find no reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. AO and the same is upheld accordingly. Therefore, all the dismissed.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper ing pages 1 to 58, containing statement of Sh. Jitendra On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) filed a copy of the assessment order in the case of Jitendra K. Palan As far as additional ground raised by the assessee is same being in the nature of purely legal ground , going to root of matter and not requiring investigation of fresh facts, submission of the parties in respect to the We find that assessee has not filed Printed from counselvise.com any copy of the reasons recorded before us and the Ld. counsel for the assessee only referred to the extract of the reasons recorded reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Said extract is reproduced as under: “Information has been received from office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit DDIT(Inv)/Unit 15.03.2019 received in this office through designated e 22.03.2019 regarding a above said assessee is running a proprictorship concern M/s Neelay Packers and Movers in which he is engaged in the business of logistic service like relocating, moving of house effects. The assessec, Jatin Harishn Sotta, had operated the bank current account of Jitendra K. Palan and credited the same with 92% cash deposit which is to ihe tune of Rs. 2,86,80,200/ cash deposit were immediately transferred through RTGS to M/s Mahendra Inte 13. Since the assessee is a non deposits remain unexplained. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 after taking necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the Notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961 dated 31.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. 7.1 We find that the Dy. Director of Income while recording statement u/s 131 of the Act in the case of Jitendra K. Palan observed deposit in current bank account of his propriety concern of Income-tax (Investigation) recorded statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan on 11.02.2019 wherein bank account was operated Sotta. He further stated that he allowed to operate the bank account to provide accommodation ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 any copy of the reasons recorded before us and the Ld. counsel for the assessee only referred to the extract of the reasons recorded d by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Said extract is reproduced as under: Information has been received from office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-5(1), Mumbai vide letter No. DDIT(Inv)/Unit-5(1)/Sharing of Info/Jitendra/2018 15.03.2019 received in this office through designated e 019 regarding a above said assessee is running a proprictorship concern M/s Neelay Packers and Movers in which he is engaged in the business of logistic service like relocating, moving of house effects. The assessec, Jatin Harishn Sotta, had operated ank current account of Jitendra K. Palan and credited the same with 92% cash deposit which is to ihe tune of Rs. 2,86,80,200/ - during F.Y. 2011-12. Further, the credit by means of cash deposit were immediately transferred through RTGS to M/s Mahendra International and M/s D.D.M Implex during the F.Y 2012 13. Since the assessee is a non-filer, the source of these cash deposits remain unexplained. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 after taking necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. Notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961 dated 31.03.2019 was issued assessee.” e find that the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) while recording statement u/s 131 of the Act in the case of Jitendra K. Palan observed deposits of cash amounting to Rs.2,86,80,200/ in current bank account of his propriety concern. The Dy. Director tax (Investigation) recorded statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan on 11.02.2019 wherein sh Shri Jitendra K. Palan was operated at the instance of Shri Jatin Harish Sotta. He further stated that he allowed to operate the bank account to provide accommodation entries to other person at the Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 7 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 any copy of the reasons recorded before us and the Ld. counsel for the assessee only referred to the extract of the reasons recorded as d by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Said Information has been received from office of Deputy Director of 5(1), Mumbai vide letter No. 5(1)/Sharing of Info/Jitendra/2018-19 dated 15.03.2019 received in this office through designated e-mail on 019 regarding a above said assessee is running a proprictorship concern M/s Neelay Packers and Movers in which he is engaged in the business of logistic service like relocating, moving of house effects. The assessec, Jatin Harishn Sotta, had operated ank current account of Jitendra K. Palan and credited the same with 92% cash deposit which is to ihe tune of Rs. 12. Further, the credit by means of cash deposit were immediately transferred through RTGS to M/s rnational and M/s D.D.M Implex during the F.Y 2012- filer, the source of these cash Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 I.T. Act 1961. Notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961 dated 31.03.2019 was issued tax (Investigation) while recording statement u/s 131 of the Act in the case of Jitendra Rs.2,86,80,200/- . The Dy. Director tax (Investigation) recorded statement of Shri Jitendra K. Shri Jitendra K. Palan stated that the instance of Shri Jatin Harish Sotta. He further stated that he allowed to operate the bank to other person at the Printed from counselvise.com instance of Shri Jatin Harish Sotta. In response to question No. 16 available on Paper Book page 16 and answer to question No. 16 Shri Jitendra K. Palan admitted that Shri Jatin Harish Sotta used his current account Jitendra K. Palan admitted deposit of cash belonging to Jatin Harish Sotta proprietor of Mahendra International. Further in question No. 23 also he admitted that cash deposits in current account Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta. For ready r Jidentra K. Palan enclosed in paper book “Q.1 Please identify yourself and produce the photocopy of your identity card. Please confirm that the oath has been administered to you and also confirm that consequences of giving false statement under Oath? Ans I am Jitendra Karamshi Palan, S/o Shri Karamshi Palan, aged 45 years, currently residing at E Swapna Nogari (Noar Tara Singh Garden) Mulund (W 400080. I confirm that the oath has been administered to me. Q.2 I am now showing you the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the chapter X of the code provides for punishment \"of contempt's of the lawful authority of public servan of your understanding, the text of section 181 and 177 of the code are reproduced herein asunder: A. \"181. False statement on or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer an eath or affirmation. Wheaver, being legally bound by an oath [or affirmation) to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other servant or other person as aforesaid, touching the subject, any belleve to be true, shall be punished with Imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to three years, and also be liable to fine. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 instance of Shri Jatin Harish Sotta. In response to question No. 16 Paper Book page 16 and answer to question No. 16 ndra K. Palan admitted that Shri Jatin Harish Sotta used his current account for deposits. In question No. 20 also Shri Jitendra K. Palan admitted that said current account was used for deposit of cash belonging to Jatin Harish Sotta proprietor of Mahendra International. Further in question No. 23 also he admitted that cash deposits in current account were Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta. For ready reference, said statement of Shri enclosed in paper book is reproduced as under: Q.1 Please identify yourself and produce the photocopy of your identity card. Please confirm that the oath has been administered to you and also confirm that you have been explained the consequences of giving false statement under Oath? Ans I am Jitendra Karamshi Palan, S/o Shri Karamshi Palan, aged 45 years, currently residing at E-406, Pinewood, Vasant Garden, Swapna Nogari (Noar Tara Singh Garden) Mulund (W 400080. I confirm that the oath has been administered to me. Q.2 I am now showing you the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the chapter X of the code provides for punishment \"of contempt's of the lawful authority of public servants\". For the sake of your understanding, the text of section 181 and 177 of the code are reproduced herein asunder: A. \"181. False statement on or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer an eath or affirmation. Wheaver, lly bound by an oath [or affirmation) to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other servant or other person as aforesaid, touching the subject, any belleve to be true, shall be punished with Imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to three years, and also be liable to fine. Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 8 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 instance of Shri Jatin Harish Sotta. In response to question No. 16 Paper Book page 16 and answer to question No. 16 ndra K. Palan admitted that Shri Jatin Harish Sotta used deposits. In question No. 20 also Shri said current account was used for deposit of cash belonging to Jatin Harish Sotta proprietor of Mahendra International. Further in question No. 23 also he were belonging to said statement of Shri is reproduced as under: Q.1 Please identify yourself and produce the photocopy of your identity card. Please confirm that the oath has been administered to you have been explained the Ans I am Jitendra Karamshi Palan, S/o Shri Karamshi Palan, aged 406, Pinewood, Vasant Garden, Swapna Nogari (Noar Tara Singh Garden) Mulund (West), Mumbai 400080. I confirm that the oath has been administered to me. Q.2 I am now showing you the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the chapter X of the code provides for punishment \"of ts\". For the sake of your understanding, the text of section 181 and 177 of the code A. \"181. False statement on or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer an eath or affirmation. Wheaver, lly bound by an oath [or affirmation) to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other servant or other person as aforesaid, touching the subject, any belleve to be true, shall be punished with Imprisonment of either description for a term which Printed from counselvise.com 8. 177. Furnishing false information, Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows o has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. C. Or, if the information, which of the commission of an offence, required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both\". D. Further, I am also the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that in case any person willfully and with intent to enable the second person to evade the imposable taxes makes any statement which is false and which the first person knows to be false, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a minimum term of three months which may extend to three years and with fine. For the sake of your clear understanding, the text of section 277A of the Act is reproduced herein as under: E. \"277A. Falsification of books of account or document, etc. person (hereafter in this section referred to as the first person) willfully and with intent to enable any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the second person) interest or penalty chargeable and imposable under this Act, makes or causes to be made any entry or statement which is false and which the first person either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, in any books of account or useful in any proceedings against the first person or the second person, under this Act, the first person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may exten F. Explanation. For the purposes of establishing the charge under this section, it shall not be necessary to prove that the second person has actually evaded any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Ac G. Please confirm that the consequences of giving false statement on oath have been tuly explained to you in the light of above mentioned sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Income Tax Act, 1961 and that you have been made aware that appropriate act attracted against you in case of violation of above provisions of law of the land. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 8. 177. Furnishing false information, Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows o has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. C. Or, if the information, which of the commission of an offence, required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both\". D. Further, I am also showing you the provisions of section 277A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that in case any person willfully and with intent to enable the second person to evade the imposable taxes makes any statement which is false and which the knows to be false, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a minimum term of three months which may extend to three years and with fine. For the sake of your clear understanding, the text of section 277A of the Act is reproduced der: E. \"277A. Falsification of books of account or document, etc. person (hereafter in this section referred to as the first person) willfully and with intent to enable any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the second person) to evade any tax or interest or penalty chargeable and imposable under this Act, makes or causes to be made any entry or statement which is false and which the first person either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, in any books of account or other document relevant to or useful in any proceedings against the first person or the second person, under this Act, the first person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine. F. Explanation. For the purposes of establishing the charge under this section, it shall not be necessary to prove that the second person has actually evaded any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act\" G. Please confirm that the consequences of giving false statement on oath have been tuly explained to you in the light of above mentioned sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Income Tax Act, 1961 and that you have been made aware that appropriate act attracted against you in case of violation of above provisions of law Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 9 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 8. 177. Furnishing false information, Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. C. Or, if the information, which of the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with showing you the provisions of section 277A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that in case any person willfully and with intent to enable the second person to evade the imposable taxes makes any statement which is false and which the knows to be false, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a minimum term of three months which may extend to three years and with fine. For the sake of your clear understanding, the text of section 277A of the Act is reproduced E. \"277A. Falsification of books of account or document, etc.- If any person (hereafter in this section referred to as the first person) willfully and with intent to enable any other person (hereafter in to evade any tax or interest or penalty chargeable and imposable under this Act, makes or causes to be made any entry or statement which is false and which the first person either knows to be false or does not believe to other document relevant to or useful in any proceedings against the first person or the second person, under this Act, the first person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three d to three years and with fine. F. Explanation. For the purposes of establishing the charge under this section, it shall not be necessary to prove that the second person has actually evaded any tax, penalty or interest chargeable G. Please confirm that the consequences of giving false statement on oath have been tuly explained to you in the light of above mentioned sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Income Tax Act, 1961 and that you have been made aware that appropriate action may be attracted against you in case of violation of above provisions of law Printed from counselvise.com Ans. Yes, I do confirm that the penal provisions for giving false statement on oath have been explained to me. Further, I also confirm having seen and understood However, I would like to reiterate that what I am stating is my truthful and correct statement only. Q.3 Please confirm that you can read, write and understand English language. In which language would you like your statement to recorded. Ans. Yes, I confirm that I can read, write and understand English language. I would like my statement to be recorded in English Language. Q.4 Please state your educational qualifications and the details of your employment. Also furnish your m Ans. Sir, I am 10th class passed. Presently, I am Proprietor in M/s Neelay Packers and Movers having its registered office at E Pinewood, Vasant Garden, Swapna Nagari (Near Tara Singh Garden) Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080. M 876762627288108516272 and email id is [e-mail]. Q.5 Please state the details of your family members and their source of income. Ans. Sir, my family details are as under: Sr. No. Name 1. Purnima Jitendra Palan 2. Neelay Jitendra Palan Q 6. What is your PAN number and slate whether you regularly file return of Income? Ans. My PAN number is AABPP08158. Snce my mcome is beiow taxable Bit, I do not me return of income. My inst relum of teome was filed for A.Y. 2009 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Ans. Yes, I do confirm that the penal provisions for giving false statement on oath have been explained to me. Further, I also confirm having seen and understood the above cited provisions. However, I would like to reiterate that what I am stating is my truthful and correct statement only. Q.3 Please confirm that you can read, write and understand English language. In which language would you like your statement to Ans. Yes, I confirm that I can read, write and understand English language. I would like my statement to be recorded in English Q.4 Please state your educational qualifications and the details of your employment. Also furnish your mobile number and email id. Ans. Sir, I am 10th class passed. Presently, I am Proprietor in M/s Neelay Packers and Movers having its registered office at E Pinewood, Vasant Garden, Swapna Nagari (Near Tara Singh Garden) Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080. My contact detail is 876762627288108516272 and email id is [e-mail]. Q.5 Please state the details of your family members and their source of income. Ans. Sir, my family details are as under: Relationship Age (yrs) Educational Qualification Wife 34 12th Pass Son 11 Studying in std. 6th What is your PAN number and slate whether you regularly file Income? My PAN number is AABPP08158. Snce my mcome is beiow taxable Bit, I do not me return of income. My inst relum of teome was filed for A.Y. 2009-2010 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 10 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Ans. Yes, I do confirm that the penal provisions for giving false statement on oath have been explained to me. Further, I also the above cited provisions. However, I would like to reiterate that what I am stating is my Q.3 Please confirm that you can read, write and understand English language. In which language would you like your statement to be Ans. Yes, I confirm that I can read, write and understand English language. I would like my statement to be recorded in English Q.4 Please state your educational qualifications and the details of obile number and email id. Ans. Sir, I am 10th class passed. Presently, I am Proprietor in M/s Neelay Packers and Movers having its registered office at E-406, Pinewood, Vasant Garden, Swapna Nagari (Near Tara Singh y contact detail is 876762627288108516272 and email id is Q.5 Please state the details of your family members and their Educational Qualification Source of income/profession House Wife Studying in Student What is your PAN number and slate whether you regularly file My PAN number is AABPP08158. Snce my mcome is beiow taxable Bit, I do not me return of income. My inst relum of teome Printed from counselvise.com Q.7 Please eeplain the nature of business under proprietary concern Mis. Moolay Packers and Move Ans. 1am engaged in Household shiling work under proprietary concern M/s. Neelay Q.8 Since when are you engaged in this business? Ans. 1 am engaged in this business from F.Y. 2010 •Q.9. As you have stated that last return of 2009-10, what was your source of income till that F.Y. 2008 Ans. I was employed as a supervisor with M/s. Pralap Packers and Movers, proprietary concern of Shri Karamshi Palan. The firm was engaged in household shifting work. job in Pratap Packers and Movers and started new proprietary concern under name M/s. Neelay Packers and Movers. Q.10 In what capacity you are recording this statement? Ans. Sir, I am recording this statement as a Neelay Packers and Movers. Q.11 Please state have you invested any capital while starting the new business Ans. No sir, I have not made any capital investment while starting the firm. Q 12. Please explain the process of work undertaken in M/s Neelay Packers and Movers. Ans. I get contract for household shifling work through Just After contact is made, household shifting work. No agreement for such contact daily labourers and transporter to get the work done. completing the shifting work cash is received. Daily labourer are form Rs. 1500 0.13 Please give the deta you. Ans I have Current Bank Account No. 000920110000389 and Bank of India. Muland Branch Mumbai Account по 00002011000071147 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Please eeplain the nature of business under proprietary concern Mis. Moolay Packers and Movers. Ans. 1am engaged in Household shiling work under proprietary concern M/s. Neelay Packers and Movers, Q.8 Since when are you engaged in this business? Ans. 1 am engaged in this business from F.Y. 2010-11. •Q.9. As you have stated that last return of income was filed for AY 10, what was your source of income till that F.Y. 2008 I was employed as a supervisor with M/s. Pralap Packers and Movers, proprietary concern of Shri Karamshi Palan. The firm was engaged in household shifting work. Due to family dispute, I left the job in Pratap Packers and Movers and started new proprietary concern under name M/s. Neelay Packers and Movers. Q.10 In what capacity you are recording this statement? Sir, I am recording this statement as a proprietor of M/s Neelay Packers and Movers. Q.11 Please state have you invested any capital while starting the new business under name M/s Neelay Packers and Movers. No sir, I have not made any capital investment while starting explain the process of work undertaken in M/s Neelay Movers. I get contract for household shifling work through Just After contact is made, visit the party and finalize the contract of household shifting work. No agreement for such contract is made. I contact daily labourers and transporter to get the work done. completing the shifting work cash is received. Daily paid cash of Re 700 per day. Transactions are paid 1500 to Rs 2000 0.13 Please give the details of all the bank accounts Ans I have Current Bank with Bank of India Mulund Branch 000920110000389 and OD (Over Draft) of India. Muland Branch Mumbai Account по 00002011000071147. Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 11 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Please eeplain the nature of business under proprietary concern Ans. 1am engaged in Household shiling work under proprietary 11. income was filed for AY 10, what was your source of income till that F.Y. 2008-2009. I was employed as a supervisor with M/s. Pralap Packers and Movers, proprietary concern of Shri Karamshi Palan. The firm was Due to family dispute, I left the job in Pratap Packers and Movers and started new proprietary concern under name M/s. Neelay Packers and Movers. Q.10 In what capacity you are recording this statement? proprietor of M/s Q.11 Please state have you invested any capital while starting the under name M/s Neelay Packers and Movers. No sir, I have not made any capital investment while starting explain the process of work undertaken in M/s Neelay I get contract for household shifling work through Just Dial. visit the party and finalize the contract of contract is made. I contact daily labourers and transporter to get the work done. After completing the shifting work cash is received. Daily y. Transactions are paid accounts operated by with Bank of India Mulund Branch (Over Draft) Account with of India. Muland Branch Mumbai Account по Printed from counselvise.com 0.14 From this address, what other concerne are being operated and give detail operating/running from this premise? Ans Sir no other entities (Proprietor ship, partnership, LLP, Company, HUF, etc) a Vasant Garden, Sapna Nagari (Near Tara (West). Mumbai 400 080 except Mrs Neelay Packers and Movers Q.15 Have you ever deposited cash in your current account with Bank of India Mulund West Branch. Ans/Yes sir. I 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch. Q.16. What amount you have deposited in your current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch out of your business income from Mis Neelay F.Y. 2010-11 onwards. Ans. The cash received from household shifting work after making payment to daily labourers and transporter maximum sum balance per contract Rs. 400/ expense. However I h (Haribhai classes at Mulund my current account with Bank of India in F.Y. 2011 promised me to get housing loan. My account was used by him till F.Y. 2012-13. Q.17 Who is Mr. Jatin Sotta. Give his complete address (residence and office) with contact details. Ans. Mr. Jatin Sotta, staying in premise at Devidayal Road, Mulund West, Mumbai Presently the premise is in redevelopment hence his whereabouts not known. He is He is in impart export business. His contact no is 9819474777 Q.18 Who deposited cash in current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch Mumbai? Ans I along with Mr. Jatin Sotla use to deposit cash i account 006920110000369. Once the cash is deposited he used to take signed cheque from me and visil Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Murnbal to remit/deposit same. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 0.14 From this address, what other concerne are being operated detail of nature of business of all the concerns operating/running from this premise? no other entities (Proprietor ship, partnership, LLP, Company, HUF, etc) are running from address E-406 Pin Vasant Garden, Sapna Nagari (Near Tara 学 Singh Garden) Mulund (West). Mumbai 400 080 except Mrs Neelay Packers and Movers Q.15 Have you ever deposited cash in your current account with Bank of India Mulund West Branch. Ans/Yes sir. I have deposited cash in my current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch. Q.16. What amount you have deposited in your current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch out of your business income from Mis Neelay Packers and Movers from 11 onwards. Ans. The cash received from household shifting work after making payment to daily labourers and transporter maximum sum balance per contract Rs. 400/- remains which is used for my household expense. However I have allowed one of my coaching class friend (Haribhai classes at Mulund - now closed) Shri Jatin Sotta to use my current account with Bank of India in F.Y. 2011 promised me to get housing loan. My account was used by him till 13. o is Mr. Jatin Sotta. Give his complete address (residence and office) with contact details. Ans. Mr. Jatin Sotta, staying in premise at Devidayal Road, Mulund West, Mumbai Presently the premise is in redevelopment hence his whereabouts not known. He is proprietor of Mahendra International He is in impart export business. His contact no is 9819474777 Q.18 Who deposited cash in current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch Mumbai? Ans I along with Mr. Jatin Sotla use to deposit cash i account 006920110000369. Once the cash is deposited he used to take signed cheque from me and visil Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Murnbal to remit/deposit same. Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 12 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 0.14 From this address, what other concerne are being operated of nature of business of all the concerns no other entities (Proprietor ship, partnership, LLP, 406 Pinewood Singh Garden) Mulund (West). Mumbai 400 080 except Mrs Neelay Packers and Movers Q.15 Have you ever deposited cash in your current account with have deposited cash in my current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch. Q.16. What amount you have deposited in your current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India Mulund west branch out of Packers and Movers from Ans. The cash received from household shifting work after making payment to daily labourers and transporter maximum sum balance remains which is used for my household coaching class friend now closed) Shri Jatin Sotta to use my current account with Bank of India in F.Y. 2011-12 as he promised me to get housing loan. My account was used by him till o is Mr. Jatin Sotta. Give his complete address (residence Ans. Mr. Jatin Sotta, staying in premise at Devidayal Road, Mulund West, Mumbai Presently the premise is in redevelopment hence his oprietor of Mahendra International He is in impart export business. His contact no is 9819474777 Q.18 Who deposited cash in current account 006920110000369 Ans I along with Mr. Jatin Sotla use to deposit cash in the current account 006920110000369. Once the cash is deposited he used to take signed cheque from me and visil Oriental Bank of Commerce, Printed from counselvise.com Q.19 Please give the bank account detail of Mahendra International, Prop. JatinSotta with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. Ans. I don't know the bank account of Mahendra International, Prop. Jatin Sotta with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. As I have visited twice to deposit cheque with Jal know the bank. Q.20 Other than Mr. Jatin Sotta, to whom you have allowed to use your current bank account at Mulund west branch. Ans. I have not allowed anybody else for using my current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west b depositing high value cash. Cash belonging to Jatin Sotta, prop of Mahendra International was deposited during FY 2011 2012-13. Q.21 From perusal of bank statement of current account 006920110000369, Bank of India Mulund west branch, it that cash deposited is withdrawn on same day by two other firms viz. Shakti Enterprises and D.D.M. Impex. Please give details of said parties. Ans. As stated above Jatin Sotta deposited cash in my bank account in my presence. After depositing the cheque prepared by him. I have no idea about Shakti Enterprises and D. D. M. Impex. It may be his concerns only. Q.22 Please state how much cash has been deposited by you and Jatin Sotta in current account 006920110000369 with Bank India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai. Ans. Cash totaling more than Rs. 2.5 crores was deposited by me and Jatin Sotta in current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai. Q.23 Please state again to whom did the cash which you in current account 006920110000389 with Bank of India, Mutund west branch, Mumbat along with Mr. Jatin Sotta belong to. Ant Sir, I apain confirm that the cash deposited in current account 006970110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai belonged to Mr Jatin Sotta Q.24 Please state whether any cash belonging to you or other party has been deposited by you in bank account other than current ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Q.19 Please give the bank account detail of Mahendra International, rop. JatinSotta with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Ans. I don't know the bank account of Mahendra International, Prop. Jatin Sotta with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. As I have visited twice to deposit cheque with Jal know the bank. Q.20 Other than Mr. Jatin Sotta, to whom you have allowed to use your current bank account at Mulund west branch. Ans. I have not allowed anybody else for using my current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west b depositing high value cash. Cash belonging to Jatin Sotta, prop of Mahendra International was deposited during FY 2011 Q.21 From perusal of bank statement of current account 006920110000369, Bank of India Mulund west branch, it that cash deposited is withdrawn on same day by two other firms viz. Shakti Enterprises and D.D.M. Impex. Please give details of said Ans. As stated above Jatin Sotta deposited cash in my bank account in my presence. After depositing the cash, I use to sign the cheque prepared by him. I have no idea about Shakti Enterprises and D. D. M. Impex. It may be his concerns only. Q.22 Please state how much cash has been deposited by you and Jatin Sotta in current account 006920110000369 with Bank India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai. Ans. Cash totaling more than Rs. 2.5 crores was deposited by me and Jatin Sotta in current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai. .23 Please state again to whom did the cash which you in current account 006920110000389 with Bank of India, Mutund west branch, Mumbat along with Mr. Jatin Sotta belong to. Ant Sir, I apain confirm that the cash deposited in current account 006970110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, mbai belonged to Mr Jatin Sotta Q.24 Please state whether any cash belonging to you or other party has been deposited by you in bank account other than current Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 13 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 Q.19 Please give the bank account detail of Mahendra International, rop. JatinSotta with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Ans. I don't know the bank account of Mahendra International, Prop. Jatin Sotta with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. As I have visited twice to deposit cheque with Jalin Solla, I Q.20 Other than Mr. Jatin Sotta, to whom you have allowed to use Ans. I have not allowed anybody else for using my current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch for depositing high value cash. Cash belonging to Jatin Sotta, prop of Mahendra International was deposited during FY 2011-12 and FY Q.21 From perusal of bank statement of current account 006920110000369, Bank of India Mulund west branch, it is seen that cash deposited is withdrawn on same day by two other firms viz. Shakti Enterprises and D.D.M. Impex. Please give details of said Ans. As stated above Jatin Sotta deposited cash in my bank cash, I use to sign the cheque prepared by him. I have no idea about Shakti Enterprises Q.22 Please state how much cash has been deposited by you and Jatin Sotta in current account 006920110000369 with Bank of Ans. Cash totaling more than Rs. 2.5 crores was deposited by me and Jatin Sotta in current account 006920110000369 with Bank of .23 Please state again to whom did the cash which you deposited in current account 006920110000389 with Bank of India, Mutund west branch, Mumbat along with Mr. Jatin Sotta belong to. Ant Sir, I apain confirm that the cash deposited in current account 006970110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Q.24 Please state whether any cash belonging to you or other party has been deposited by you in bank account other than current Printed from counselvise.com account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west in India. Ans. I state on oath that such other bank account. I have only one current account 1.8 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai in which cash is deposited in my presence by Jatin Sotta. My other account is overdraft account me transaction is made in overdraft account. Q.25 Please state how much commission did you received in each cash deposit transaction from Jatin Sotta. Ans. I have not received any commission from him. I have just allowed him to use by c Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai as he promised me to help me getting loan. Q.26 Please state why the cash deposited in your current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai should not be brought to tax in your hand. Ans. Sir, I already stated on oath that the cash deposited in my current account is belonging to Jatin Sotta. He used to contact me on my mobile no. 9920943816 whenever he wanted to deposit his cash in my current ac Mulund west branch, Mumbai. I will give the information/ whereabouts of Jatin Sotta within three days. The recording of statement of Shri Jitendra Palan is temporarily concluded for the day at 5.00 P.M on 11/02/201 the assessee and he is allowed to take rest. Further, recording of statement will resume tomorrow Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. The above statement is given by me voluntarily, without any force, threat, coercion, any inducement, promise, or any other undue influence. I further affirm that oath was administered to me before recording the statement. Further I declare that I have read & understood the above recorded statement and I confirm that it has been correctly recorded and as such, the contents of the same are 7.2 It is sina que non reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west in Ans. I state on oath that such transaction are not done by me in any other bank account. I have only one current account 1.8 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai in which cash is deposited in my presence by Jatin Sotta. My other account is overdraft account mentioned above. No such transaction is made in overdraft account. Q.25 Please state how much commission did you received in each cash deposit transaction from Jatin Sotta. Ans. I have not received any commission from him. I have just allowed him to use by current account i.e. 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai as he promised me to help me getting loan. Q.26 Please state why the cash deposited in your current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, ould not be brought to tax in your hand. Ans. Sir, I already stated on oath that the cash deposited in my current account is belonging to Jatin Sotta. He used to contact me on my mobile no. 9920943816 whenever he wanted to deposit his cash in my current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai. I will give the information/ whereabouts of Jatin Sotta within three days. The recording of statement of Shri Jitendra Palan is temporarily concluded for the day at 5.00 P.M on 11/02/2019 on the request of the assessee and he is allowed to take rest. Further, recording of statement will resume tomorrow on 18/02/2019. Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. The above statement is given by me voluntarily, without any force, threat, coercion, any inducement, promise, or any other undue influence. I further affirm that oath was administered to me before recording the statement. Further I declare that I have read & understood the above recorded atement and I confirm that it has been correctly recorded and as such, the contents of the same are binding on me.” sina que non that the Assessing Officer must have a that income chargeable to tax has escaped Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 14 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west in transaction are not done by me in any other bank account. I have only one current account 1.8 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai in which cash is deposited in my presence by Jatin Sotta. ntioned above. No such Q.25 Please state how much commission did you received in each Ans. I have not received any commission from him. I have just urrent account i.e. 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai as he promised me to Q.26 Please state why the cash deposited in your current account 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Ans. Sir, I already stated on oath that the cash deposited in my current account is belonging to Jatin Sotta. He used to contact me on my mobile no. 9920943816 whenever he wanted to deposit his count 006920110000369 with Bank of India, Mulund west branch, Mumbai. I will give the information/ The recording of statement of Shri Jitendra Palan is temporarily 9 on the request of the assessee and he is allowed to take rest. Further, recording of Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. The above statement is given by me voluntarily, without any force, threat, coercion, any inducement, promise, or any other undue influence. I further affirm that oath was administered to me before recording the statement. Further I declare that I have read & understood the above recorded atement and I confirm that it has been correctly recorded and as that the Assessing Officer must have a that income chargeable to tax has escaped Printed from counselvise.com assessment; such b material and not on conjecture or suspicion. The material before the AO in this case — Investigation Wing coupled with a sworn statement recorded under section 131 — is of a The statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan is explicit that substantial cash deposits in his account were made on behalf of, and at the instance of, the assessee and were thereafter routed to entities belonging to the assessee. Such a nexus between the deposits and the assessee is a cogent and relevant material on which a belief may legitimately be founded. In short, the AO’s subjective belief was supported by objective, tangible data and hence the reopening complies with the statutory test. 7.3 Statements recorded under section 131, given on oath before an authorised officer, carry substantial evidentiary weight. Admissions in such statements an account was used at the instan cash deposited belonged to that person leads for reopening of assessment K. Palan identifies the assessee as the source and the beneficiary of the disputed receipts; material to trace the origin and application of funds. Reliance on such a statement for forming sustainable. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 assessment; such belief must be based on tangible, credible material and not on conjecture or suspicion. The material before the a contemporaneous communication from the Investigation Wing coupled with a sworn statement recorded under character that goes well beyond idle suspicion. The statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan is explicit that substantial cash deposits in his account were made on behalf of, and at the instance of, the assessee and were thereafter routed to entities to the assessee. Such a nexus between the deposits and the assessee is a cogent and relevant material on which a belief may legitimately be founded. In short, the AO’s subjective belief was supported by objective, tangible data and hence the reopening plies with the statutory test. Statements recorded under section 131, given on oath before an authorised officer, carry substantial evidentiary weight. Admissions in such statements — particularly those admitting that an account was used at the instance of another person and that cash deposited belonged to that person — are relevant and reliable reopening of assessment. The statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan identifies the assessee as the source and the beneficiary of the disputed receipts; it therefore constitutes logical and cogent material to trace the origin and application of funds. Reliance on such a statement for forming reasons to believe Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 15 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 elief must be based on tangible, credible material and not on conjecture or suspicion. The material before the a contemporaneous communication from the Investigation Wing coupled with a sworn statement recorded under character that goes well beyond idle suspicion. The statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan is explicit that substantial cash deposits in his account were made on behalf of, and at the instance of, the assessee and were thereafter routed to entities to the assessee. Such a nexus between the deposits and the assessee is a cogent and relevant material on which a belief may legitimately be founded. In short, the AO’s subjective belief was supported by objective, tangible data and hence the reopening Statements recorded under section 131, given on oath before an authorised officer, carry substantial evidentiary weight. particularly those admitting that ce of another person and that are relevant and reliable . The statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan identifies the assessee as the source and the beneficiary of it therefore constitutes logical and cogent material to trace the origin and application of funds. Reliance on reasons to believe is legally Printed from counselvise.com 7.4 A reopening founded on mere parroting of an investigational conclusion — without independent application of mind by the AO gives rise to the objection of borrowed satisfaction. That is not this case. The record shows (a) receipt of information from the Investigation Wing; (b) verification of bank entries; and (c) reproduction of relevant portions of the statement of the third account-holder. The AO did not simply adopt a template; he applied the material to the facts of the assessee (bank trail showing transfers to the assessee’s concerns) and recorded reasons accordingly. Thus, the AO’s belief was his own, informed by admissible material, and cannot be characterised as borrowed satisfaction. 7.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, w Ld. counsel for the assessee and uphold the reassessment proceedings. 8. As far as addition on merit is concerned, the assessee submitted that cash was deposited in the account belonging to sh Jitendra K. the hands of the said person. The assessee was not in position to explain the source of said cash deposit, therefore no addition in the hands of assessee is warranted. The Ld. counsel referred to information sent by th the Assessing Officer along with copy of the statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan, which is available on Paper Book page 9 to 19. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 A reopening founded on mere parroting of an investigational without independent application of mind by the AO gives rise to the objection of borrowed satisfaction. That is not this case. The record shows (a) receipt of information from the Investigation Wing; (b) verification of bank entries; and (c) tion of relevant portions of the statement of the third holder. The AO did not simply adopt a template; he applied the material to the facts of the assessee (bank trail showing transfers to the assessee’s concerns) and recorded reasons ingly. Thus, the AO’s belief was his own, informed by admissible material, and cannot be characterised as borrowed In view of aforesaid discussion, we reject the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee and uphold the reassessment As far as addition on merit is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that cash was deposited in the account belonging to sh Jitendra K. Palan and addition has been made in the hands of the said person. The assessee was not in position to explain the source of said cash deposit, therefore no addition in the hands of assessee is warranted. The Ld. counsel referred to information sent by the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to the Assessing Officer along with copy of the statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan, which is available on Paper Book page 9 to 19. Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 16 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 A reopening founded on mere parroting of an investigational without independent application of mind by the AO — gives rise to the objection of borrowed satisfaction. That is not this case. The record shows (a) receipt of information from the Investigation Wing; (b) verification of bank entries; and (c) tion of relevant portions of the statement of the third-party holder. The AO did not simply adopt a template; he applied the material to the facts of the assessee (bank trail showing transfers to the assessee’s concerns) and recorded reasons ingly. Thus, the AO’s belief was his own, informed by admissible material, and cannot be characterised as borrowed reject the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee and uphold the reassessment the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that cash was deposited in the account Palan and addition has been made in the hands of the said person. The assessee was not in position to explain the source of said cash deposit, therefore no addition in the hands of assessee is warranted. The Ld. counsel referred to tax (Investigation) to the Assessing Officer along with copy of the statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan, which is available on Paper Book page 9 to 19. Printed from counselvise.com The Ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to the reassessment proceedings of subsequent assessment year 2013 similar deposit made in the subsequent assessment year and submitted that in subsequent year, no addition has been made. 8.1 We find that assessee either before the Ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) the statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan reproduced above evident that the deposits of account of Shri Jitendra K. Palan, the bank account of the assessee and assessee, as they were transferred to the assessee’s concerns. Once the nexus is established, the burden squarely lay on the assessee to explain the nature and source however, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A), nor even before us, has brought any material to discharge this burden. The assessee cannot run away by way of making argument that it was the onus of S in his current account and addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in his case and therefore, no addition is warranted in the case of the assessee. Shri Jitendra K. Palan is of no avail, since the evidence clearly demonstrates that the monies belonged to and enured to the benefit of the assessee. No documentary evidence support of the ultimate source of ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to the reassessment of subsequent assessment year 2013-14 in respect of similar deposit made in the subsequent assessment year and submitted that in subsequent year, no addition has been made. find that assessee didn’t explain the sources of deposits e Ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) the statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan reproduced above that the deposits of ₹2,86,80,200/–, though made in the account of Shri Jitendra K. Palan, most of it ultimately landed in the bank account of the assessee and were directly traceable to the assessee, as they were transferred to the assessee’s concerns. Once the nexus is established, the burden squarely lay on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the said deposits. The assessee, however, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A), nor even before us, has brought any material to discharge this The assessee cannot run away by way of making argument that it was the onus of Shri Jitendra K. Palan to explain the deposit in his current account and addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in his case and therefore, no addition is warranted in the case of the assessee. Mere plea that the account belonged to Palan is of no avail, since the evidence clearly demonstrates that the monies belonged to and enured to the benefit o documentary evidences have ultimate source of credit appearing in the books of Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 17 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to the reassessment 14 in respect of similar deposit made in the subsequent assessment year and submitted that in subsequent year, no addition has been made. the sources of deposits e Ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A). From the statement of Shri Jitendra K. Palan reproduced above it is , though made in the ultimately landed in were directly traceable to the assessee, as they were transferred to the assessee’s concerns. Once the nexus is established, the burden squarely lay on the assessee to of the said deposits. The assessee, however, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A), nor even before us, has brought any material to discharge this The assessee cannot run away by way of making argument hri Jitendra K. Palan to explain the deposit in his current account and addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in his case and therefore, no addition is warranted Mere plea that the account belonged to Palan is of no avail, since the evidence clearly demonstrates that the monies belonged to and enured to the benefit have been filed in credit appearing in the books of Printed from counselvise.com the assessee, which are current account of Jitendra K. Palan 8.2 We are also unable to accept the contention that, since no addition was made in the subsequent year, consistency demands deletion in the present year. years cannot be mechanically plugged in as a shield in the present year. Each assessment year is a distinct unit governed by facts and material available for that year. The invocation of a subsequent acceptance in a later year cannot Revenue from pursuing a legitimate claim in an earlier year where cogent material existed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in India [155 ITR 120 (SC)], an error; each assessment year is a separate unit, and the principle of consistency cannot override substantive justice where tangible material establishes taxability. 8.3 The assessee’s failure to file the regula under consideration, coupled with repeated non notices under section 142 and non crucial issue, is material. The law permits the drawing of an adverse inference where a taxpayer, despite being wilfully refrains from disclosing material facts or producing evidence. Non-cooperation in the face of clear documentary leads ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 which are generated due to cash deposits in the current account of Jitendra K. Palan. We are also unable to accept the contention that, since no addition was made in the subsequent year, consistency demands deletion in the present year. Orders passed in other assessment years cannot be mechanically plugged in as a shield in the present year. Each assessment year is a distinct unit governed by facts and material available for that year. The invocation of a subsequent acceptance in a later year cannot, without more, disentitle the Revenue from pursuing a legitimate claim in an earlier year where cogent material existed. It is a trite law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of [155 ITR 120 (SC)], that there is no heroism in perpetuating an error; each assessment year is a separate unit, and the principle of consistency cannot override substantive justice where tangible material establishes taxability. The assessee’s failure to file the regular return for the year under consideration, coupled with repeated non-compliance with notices under section 142 and non-appearance to explain the crucial issue, is material. The law permits the drawing of an adverse inference where a taxpayer, despite being afforded opportunities, wilfully refrains from disclosing material facts or producing cooperation in the face of clear documentary leads Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 18 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 cash deposits in the We are also unable to accept the contention that, since no addition was made in the subsequent year, consistency demands ed in other assessment years cannot be mechanically plugged in as a shield in the present year. Each assessment year is a distinct unit governed by facts and material available for that year. The invocation of a subsequent , without more, disentitle the Revenue from pursuing a legitimate claim in an earlier year where It is a trite law, as enunciated by the Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of that there is no heroism in perpetuating an error; each assessment year is a separate unit, and the principle of consistency cannot override substantive justice where tangible r return for the year compliance with appearance to explain the crucial issue, is material. The law permits the drawing of an adverse afforded opportunities, wilfully refrains from disclosing material facts or producing cooperation in the face of clear documentary leads Printed from counselvise.com weakens the assessee’s case and strengthens the reasonableness of the AO’s conclusion. 8.4 Having upheld the validity of reassessment and noting the cogent material relied upon by the AO, we are mindful of basic tenets of natural justice and the principle that adjudication should aim at substantial justice rather than mere technical victory. Nonetheless, considering the plea of the assessee that one further opportunity be afforded to adduce evidence explaining the of cash deposits, which have in the bank account of the assessee, principle that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall be at liberty to place all supporting documents to substantiate his explanation regardi The assessee shall also produce sh lower authorities so as to identification of cash deposits pertaining to assessee can be correctly carried out. T adjudicate the issue afresh in a out all necessary enquiry as deemed fit but after opportunity to the assessee 8.5 The grounds of appeal of the assessee on the merit are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 weakens the assessee’s case and strengthens the reasonableness of Having upheld the validity of reassessment and noting the cogent material relied upon by the AO, we are mindful of basic tenets of natural justice and the principle that adjudication should aim at substantial justice rather than mere technical victory. etheless, considering the plea of the assessee that one further opportunity be afforded to adduce evidence explaining the of cash deposits, which have directly or indirectly, ultimately landed in the bank account of the assessee, and bearing in min principle that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall be at liberty to place all supporting documents to substantiate his explanation regarding the source of cash deposits. The assessee shall also produce sh Jitendra K. Palan lower authorities so as to identification of cash deposits pertaining to assessee can be correctly carried out. The Ld. adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law after out all necessary enquiry as deemed fit but after opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The grounds of appeal of the assessee on the merit are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 19 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 weakens the assessee’s case and strengthens the reasonableness of Having upheld the validity of reassessment and noting the cogent material relied upon by the AO, we are mindful of basic tenets of natural justice and the principle that adjudication should aim at substantial justice rather than mere technical victory. etheless, considering the plea of the assessee that one further opportunity be afforded to adduce evidence explaining the sources ultimately landed and bearing in mind the principle that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall be at liberty to place all supporting documents to source of cash deposits. Jitendra K. Palan before the lower authorities so as to identification of cash deposits pertaining Ld. CIT(A) shall ccordance with law after carrying out all necessary enquiry as deemed fit but after affording due The grounds of appeal of the assessee on the merit are Printed from counselvise.com 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta 20 ITA No. 1916/MUM/2025 result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for /09/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "