VINAY KUMAR JHA ,MUMBAI V. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 285/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Vinay Kumar Jha appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2018-19, based on information that Jha was involved in trading shares of M/s. Panafic Industrials Limited, which allegedly resulted in bogus Long Term Capital Gains. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately substantiated the sources of the cash deposits totaling Rs. 6 lakhs into his bank account, which were transferred to the broker's account for share purchases. The Tribunal provided the assessee another opportunity to present his case with sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471300 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: USHA GAIKWAD
• Assessee Lawyers: URJA PRADEEP JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Gift; Bogus
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 285/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vinay Kumar Jha, 203, Relible Complex, G Wing, 2nd Floor, Near Rajiv Gandhi School, Nalasopara West, Maharashtra PAN :ARZPJ4527D vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Urja Pradeep Jain Revenue by : Smt. Usha Gaikwad,Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04-03-2025 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.28-11-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2018-19. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs made by the AO. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee filed his return of incomefor the year under considerationdeclaring a total income of Rs. 2,93,920/-. The AO received information that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of bogus Long Term Capital Gain 2 ITA No. 285/Mum/2025 by trading in the shares of M/s. Panafic Industrials Limited. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee has carried on trading in the above said shares through a broker, named, M/s. Deal Money Securities Private Limited. The AO noticed that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 34.42 lakhs to the above said trader for purchasing the shares. Hence, the AO asked to explain the sources of the amounts so paid to the broker. It was noticed that the assessee has, inter alia, deposited cash of Rs. 6 lakhs into his bank account on various dates and transferred the same to the broker‟s account. With regard to the sources of Rs. 6 lakhs, the assessee explained that it is out of his past savings and other income disclosed in the ITR. The AO did not accept the explanations of the assessee and accordingly assessed the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs as un-explained income u/s. 69 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted a new explanation, viz., that the above said amount of Rs. 6 lakhs also included gifts received from relatives on various occasions. In support of the above said explanation, the assessee furnished copies of id proofs of two of his relatives. We notice that the assessee also did not furnish details of past income, savings made there from, year wise details of gifts, if any, received etc., in order to prove the cash deposits of Rs.6.00 lakhs made into the bank account of the assessee. In these set of facts, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the AO. 4. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the AO for examining the same afresh. We also direct the assessee to furnish all the information/explanation 3 ITA No. 285/Mum/2025 and evidences to support the claim of the past income, savings and receipt of gifts. The AO, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-03-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP GOSAIN] [B.R. BASKARAN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 04-03-2025 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai "