VIJAY RATNAKAR GUTTE,MUMBAI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITSSA 60/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by different assessees, Vijay Ratnakar Gutte and Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. Both appeals were related and addressed similar grounds concerning the addition of undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 2.65 crores and Rs. 2.60 crores respectively, which were allegedly linked to the assessees. The additions were based on documents seized during a search operation at Sunil Hitech Group, where Vijay Ratnakar Gutte was a director. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence provided by the assessees was crucial and relevant for determining the tax liability and should have been admitted by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717063 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMA SHANKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH LADDA; VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 60/MUM/2025 (AY: 2013-14) (Hybridhearing) Vijay Ratnakar Gutte 10th Floor, A2, Sandhu Palace, Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Maharashtra – 400050. [PAN: AFTPG3584K] Vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai 420, 4th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue ITA No. 6106/MUM/2024 (AY: 2013-14) (Hybrid hearing) Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte Janabai Nagar, Gangakhed, Maharashtra – 431514. [PAN: ABPPG7367Q] Vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai 420, 4th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Girish Ladda, CA (Virtually) Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Institution 23.11.2024 &04.01.2025 Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by different assessee being related to each other are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) dated 26.09.2024 & 07.11.2024 for A.Y. 2013-14. Certain facts in both the appeals are common and inter-connected, both the assessees have raised certain similar grounds of appeal, thus, with the consent of parties both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 2 decision. For appreciation of facts, facts in IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1) On the facts of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in making addition of Rs 2,65,00,000/- particularly when no incriminating material /papers were seized in search action from the premises of the assessee. 2) On the facts of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,65,00,000/-The Appellant Prays for Deletion of the Same. 3) The lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs 2,65,00,000/-without bringing on record any proof as to Assessee has made investment in land or any other Assets. The Appellant does not own any land at Dhule and therefore there is no question of making any investment in land at Dhule. The Appellant prays for deletion of addition made. 4) Without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of Appellant, as to cash of Rs. 2.65 Crore was belonging Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd and therefore addition in hands of the assessee is unjustified. 5) Without prejudice to above grounds and without accepting, addition of Rs. 2.65 Crores on any Account, if it is held against the Assessee, still the same does not fall in F.Y.2012-2013 (Α.Y.2013-14) as clear from the papers seized from premises of Shri Ratnakar Gutte, therefore, the addition is not Sustainable. The Appellant prays to delete the same. 6) Without prejudice to above grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, which are very important for determining the taxability of impugned amount. Hence, it is prayed that order of the CIT(A) may please be set aside with appropriate directions. 7) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, clarify, explain and or withdraw the grounds as occasion may demand.” ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 2. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; “1. On the facts of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,60,00,000/-Appellant Prays for Deletion of the Same. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 3 2) Without Prejudice to Ground No.1, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2.60 Crores, made by Assessing Officer u/s 69B. The Appellant prays for deletion of same as Sec. 69B is not applicable to the Transaction and the Assessing Officer has not Substantiated the applicability of Sec. 69B of Income Tax Act. 3) The lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs 2,60,00,000 without bringing on record any proof as to Assessee has made investment in land or any other Assets. The Appellant does not own any land at Dhule. The Appellant prays for deletion of addition made. 4) Without prejudice to above grounds and without accepting addition of Rs. 2.60 Crores on any Account, if it is held against the Assessee, still the same does not fall in F.Y.2012-2013 (Α.Υ.2013-14) as clear from seized papers, therefore, the addition is not Sustainable. The Appellant prays to delete the same. 5) Without prejudice to above grounds, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of Appellant, as to cash of Rs. 2.60 Crore belongs Sunil Hitech Engineers ltd. Appellant prays to accepting the explanation of Source, as Substantiated by Appellant. (Discussed in Para 1.7 of the Order) 6) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground relating to deductions under chapter VIA of Rs. 1,25,000/- as to 80C, 80D, SOTTA. 7) Without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. AO erred in passing the assessment order in hurry on 29/12/2018 without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, as the assessment proceedings were abated till 12/12/2018 due to pending application before Settlement Commission. Hence, it is prayed that assessment order may please be set aside. 8) CIT(A) has erred in not dealing with Additional Ground before him as to Assessing Officer having not given credit for self-assessment tax paid. Appellant prays for credit of self-assessment tax and other tax credits. 9) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, clarify, explain and or withdraw the grounds as occasion may demand.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 4 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that a search action under section 132 was carried out on Sunil Hitech Group on 16.12.2015. The assessee is one of the directors in Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. The case of assessee was centralised in Central Circle, Mumbai on the direction in Writ Petition by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Notice under section 153A dated 09.10.2017 was served upon the assessee. In pursuance of notice under section 153A, the assessee filed return of income. The assessing officer during the assessment noted that in the search action, a document was seized as Annexure-A. Page no. 11 of annexure A consists of print out of e-mail sent by one employee to another employee of Sunil Hi Tech Group about the different amount in the name of Gutte family aggregating to Rs. 5.25 crores. Details of which are scanned on page no. 4 of assessment order. On the basis of such e-mail detail, the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the amount mentioned against the name of assessee of Rs. 2.65 crores should not be treated as undisclosed income. The assessee in response to show cause notice submitted that the alleged cash belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. and the assessee was a salaried employee. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd is juristic person and so the cash of company has to be kept with some individual person. The reply of assessee was disregarded and addition was made in the hand of assessee. For remaining amount, the addition of Rs. 2.60 crore was made in the assessment of (Vijay Ratnakar Gutte, appellant in connected appeal). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detail explanation and the evidence to substantiate the fact that Sunil Hitech Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 5 Engineers Private Limted owned up the alleged cash and filed application before Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), Mumbai and accepted that such amount belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers, however, their application was rejected for technical reason. The additional evidence which was essential and crucial was not accepted by ld. CIT(A) and the additions were confirmed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the additional evidence furnished by assessee is crucial and relevant for real determination of tax liability and ought to have admitted by ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee by referring various evidences would submit that additional evidence furnished by assessee may be accepted and the matter may be restored back to the lower authorities to consider such additional evidence and pass the order afresh. 4. On our specific query about the status of assessment or first appeal in case of Sunil Hi Tech Engineers, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted said appeal is still pending before CIT(A) and that insolvency proceedings were initiated against the Sunil Hitech Engineers Private Limited before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). In another connected appeal in case of Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, which is the subject matter of ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the said case, the assessee furnished certain details before assessing officer, still assessment was completed under section 144. The assessing officer has not even allowed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1.25 lakh. Out of total alleged cash payment shown on page no. 11 of Annexure A, Rs. 2.60 crores were added in the hand Ratnakar M Gutte. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer on account Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 6 of unexplained income as well as disallowance under section VIA. As the additions in both the appeals are based on page no. 11 of annexure A, therefore, this appeal may also be restored to the file of lower authorities. 5. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submits that assessee failed to substantiate contention about the source of alleged unexplained money either before assessing officer or before ld. CIT(A). No evidence was furnished by assessee about owning up of alleged amount shown on page no. 11 of annexure A. Thus, the assessee does not deserve any relief at this stage. So far as, admission of additional evidence is concerned. The assessee failed to given cogent reason as per Rule 46 of Income Tax Rules before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the additional evidence was rightly not accepted by ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various evidences filed in the form of paper book. We find that before assessing officer, the assessee simply took the plea that details of cash mentioned on page no. 11 of annexure A belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd., however, no cogent evidence was furnished. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details and the evidence about the stand of Sunil Hitech Engineers Private Ltd. for owning up the impugned cash transaction recorded on page No.11 of Annexure-A, that it belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. However, the additional evidence furnished by assessee was not accepted by ld. CIT(A) by taking view that additional evidences are not authenticated and have co-relation and / or no final order is made by ITSC in Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 7 case of Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. In our view, the finding of ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidence is not justified, when the assessee has tried to substantiate the fact that alleged cash payment shown on page no. 11 of annexure A belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers and that Sunil Hitech Engineers have owned up such money. Considering the relevancy of evidence, the evidence furnished by assessee are admitted and matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to verify the fact and pass assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order, the assessing officer shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidences and information before assessing officer. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) 8. So far as the grounds in ITA No. 6106/M/2024, we find that part of the amount i.e. Rs. 2.60 Crore, recorded on page-11 of Annexure A is added in the hand of this assessee. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 144, despite filing certain reply before the assessing officer. Considering the fact that the in connected appeal we have restored the matter to the file of assessing officer, therefore, the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6106/M/2024 is also restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the order afresh. The assessing officer is also directed to consider the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte 8 deduction of Chapter VIA. The assessee is also directed to provide complete details of deduction under Chapter VI-A.In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 18/08/2025 at the time of hearing. Sd/- OM PRADASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:18/08/2025 Biswajit 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 "