TUSHAR SURESH TAYSHETE ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 4968/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tushar Suresh Tayshete, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed an addition of Rs.9,70,000 to his income for the assessment year 2015-16 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained investment. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following the assessee's failure to substantiate the sources of certain credit entries in his bank account, which were linked to the purchase of immovable property. The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence presented, including bank statements and payment challans, and partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition related to the stamp duty payment while upholding the addition for the unexplained sources of other credits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793102 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK CHOKSY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4968/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Tushar Suresh Tayshete, E-701, Ambika Darshan, C.P . Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai – 400101 PAN : AADPT9011H ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 42(1)(5) Kautilya Bhawan C 41-43, G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Choksy Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 23/09/2025 Date of Order - 26/09/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 11.06.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In this appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in passing the appellate order u/s. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4968/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 2 250 of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice by not giving opportunity to be heard before dismissing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in confirming addition of INR 9,70,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment.” 3. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is against the addition of Rs.9,70,000/- made under section 69 of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are that the assessee is an individual and pursuant to the information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 24.04.2022, as the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 25.05.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.10,15,040/-. As per the information available with the Department, during the relevant financial year, the assessee purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.85 lakh. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act during the assessment proceedings, seeking details regarding the source of payment for the purchase of the immovable property. In response, the assessee submitted that payment was made after availing loans for relatives. However, the assessee was unable to substantiate the details of the relatives from whom the payment was stated to have been taken. Further from the perusal of the bank statement, it was observed that the assessee has received certain payments, but the assessee could not furnish the evidence regarding the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness along with supporting documentary evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed under section Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4968/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 3 147 read with section 144B of the Act, made the addition of Rs.10,45,000/- in respect of the following entries in the Axis Bank Account of the assessee: S. No. Dated Description Amount credited 1 06.05.2014 Clg 001967 Mumbai 50000 2 07.05.2014 Clg 948832 Mumbai 100000 3 07.05.2014 BRN By cash Tushar Suresh 25000 4 10.05.2014 Clg 00276 Mumbai 25000 5 22.05.2014 RTGS/IBKLH14142021447/IDBI 455000 6 26.05.2014 NEFT/SBIN3141416828204/PATIL RAMAKANT GANPAT 390000 Total 10,45,000/- 5. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee and deleted the addition to an extent of Rs. 75,000/- after considering the submissions of the assessee. As regards the balance addition, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of the balance credit entries in his bank account. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, since the assessee could not substantiate the nature and source of certain credit entries in his bank account, which the assessee claimed to have been received for the purpose of purchase of immovable property, the AO made an addition to the extent of Rs.10,45,000/-. The learned CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee as regards the receipt of Rs.50,000/- on 06.05.2014 and Rs.25,000/- on 07.05.2014, and deleted the addition to that extent. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4968/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 4 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) as regards the credit entry of Rs.4,55,000/- on 22.05.2014 in the Axis Bank Account of the assessee, submitted that the said entry was in respect of the stamp duty paid by the assessee on 21.05.2014, which was reversed on the very next date, i.e., 22.05.2014. The learned AR by referring to the bank statement of the account of the assessee maintained with Axis Bank, Kandivali, Mumbai, forming part of the paper book from pages 12 to 15, submitted that on 24.05.2014, the assessee again made the payment of stamp duty. In this regard, the learned AR also referred to the copy of the agreement for sale in respect of which said stamp duty was paid. From the perusal of the agreement for sale dated 30.05.2014, forming part of the paper book on pages 01-11, we find that the assessee paid Rs.4,55,000/- in respect of stamp duty and in this regard, the challan dated 27.05.2014 of payment of stamp duty also forms part of the paper book on page 3. Therefore, having perused the aforesaid documents, we find merit in the submission of the assessee that the credit of Rs. 4,55,000/- on 22.05.2014 was nothing but the reversal of stamp duty paid on 21.05.2014. As regards the objection of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee could not prove the source of the aforesaid payment, from the perusal of the bank statement, we find that on 19.05.2014, the assessee had a credit entry in his bank account of Rs. 9 lakh, which has not been doubted by the lower authorities. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee had sufficient balance in his bank account to make the payment of stamp duty of Rs.4,55,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4968/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 5 8. As regards the remaining payment amounting to Rs. 5,15,000/-, the assessee could not bring any documentary evidence on record to prove the nature and source of such credit entry for making the investment in the immovable property. Despite the fact that all these credit entries were in the running bank account of the assessee, when it is found that the assessee has made an investment, we are of the considered view that the responsibility lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such investment under section 69 of the Act. As in the present case, the assessee could not bring any material to explain the nature and source of the credit entry, totalling Rs. 5,15,000/-, to this extent, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the addition under section 69 of the Act. However, as regards the payment of Rs.4,55,000/-, in view of our aforesaid findings, we direct the AO to delete the addition made under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/09/2025 Sd/- NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 26/09/2025 Prabhat Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4968/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 6 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. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "