RAHUL MADHAV GOSWAMI,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

SA 53/MUM/2026

AI Insights

Rahul Madhav Goswami filed a stay application against an outstanding tax demand resulting from additions made under sections 68, 69, 69A, and 69C of the Income Tax Act, related to unexplained investments and expenditures. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld these additions after scrutiny of the assessee's financial transactions, which included trading in Virtual Digital Assets, but lacked proper documentation to substantiate the sources of credits and expenses. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the lack of new material evidence, dismissed the stay application and scheduled an expedited hearing for the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847778 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN P. KUMAR VIRTUALLY APPEARED
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Unexplained expenditure; Unexplained investment; Application of stay
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 69; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No. 53/MUM/2026 (in ITA No. 1478/MUM/2026) (Assessment Year: 2022–23) Rahul Madhav Goswami, B/13 New Jayashree Apt. Pendse Nagar, Road No.2, Tilak Nagar S.O. (Thane) Kalyan, Thane – 421201 PAN : BLJPG6175K ……………. Applicant v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1) Mumbai …………….Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sachin P. Kumar (Virtually appeared) Revenue by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 20/03/2026 Date of Order – 23/03/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. 1. The assessee has filed the present Stay Application No.53/Mum/2026 in ITA No.1478/Mum/2026, for the assessment year 2022-23, seeking a grant of stay on the recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.58,32,660/-. 2. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) made the addition under sections 68, 69, 69A and 69C of the Act and raised a demand of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 53/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23) 2 58,32,907/- vide notice issued under section 156 of the Act. The learned AR submitted that the assessee filed the details in respect of additions made by the AO. However, there are certain additional information/documents, which are available with the assessee, in support of its claim, which could not be filed before any of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that prima facie the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee for the stay of the disputed demand. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently opposed the stay application and submitted that all the objections/submissions of the assessee were duly considered by the AO as well as by the learned CIT(A), and therefore, the assessee should be directed to deposit the outstanding demand. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration filed its return of income on 24.09.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.24,35,980/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had shown substantial financial transactions, including trading in Virtual Digital Assets (USDT / Crypto), but had not maintained proper books of account or substantiated the source of various credits and expenses. It was further noticed that credits in the bank account, claims of unsecured loans, investments and business expenses are not supported by credible Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 53/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23) 3 documentary evidence or third-party confirmations. Accordingly, the AO, vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, rejected the explanation offered by the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.82,61,988/- after making the following additions: -  Addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- as unsecured loans (including deposits) from others u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained investment.  Addition of Rs. 1,05,263/- as current assets u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained investment. • Addition of Rs. 14,00,785/- as loans and advances u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained money. • Addition of Rs. 4,33,529/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained expenditure. • Addition of Rs. 12,83,000/-u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained expenditure. • Addition of Rs. 4,03,431/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE on account of unexplained expenditure 5. The learned CIT(A), vide its order dated 31.12.2025, passed under section 250 of the Act, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee after finding various discrepancies in the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO under sections 68, 69, 69A and 69C of the Act. 6. From the perusal of the order passed by the AO as well as by the learned CIT(A), it is evident that all the documents/submissions furnished by the assessee were examined in detail. However, as the assessee could not discharge the onus as cast on him under sections 68, 69, 69A and 69C of the Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 53/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23) 4 Act, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 82,61,988/-, which resulted in a demand of Rs. 58,32,907/- vide notice issued under section 156 of the Act. 7. During the hearing, the learned AR, apart from claiming that prima facie the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee, did not bring to our attention any material to substantiate his claim. Further, no justifiable reason has been placed on record for not filing additional information/documents before the lower authorities, which the learned AR submitted are available with the assessee in support of its claim. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to establish its case for the grant of stay of the outstanding demand of Rs. 58,32,660/-. Accordingly, the present stay application filed by the assessee for stay of the outstanding demand is dismissed. 8. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the Revenue is pressing for recovery of the demand. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to list the assessee’s appeal for hearing on an out-of-turn basis and grant an early hearing to the appeal, being ITA No. 1478/Mum/2026. Accordingly, the appeal by the assessee, ITA No. 1478/Mum/2026 for the assessment year 2022-23, is directed to be listed for hearing on 06.04.2026, i.e. the date convenient to both parties. Since the date of hearing of the appeal was announced in open court, the issuance of notice to the parties is hereby dispensed with. Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 53/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23) 5 9. In the result, the present stay application filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2022-23 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/03/2026 Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23/03/2026 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "