M.R PRAKASH M. ADANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL)-50, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the purchase value of shares (Rs. 13,85,326/-) could be added as unexplained investment under Section 69, as the assessee failed to explain the source. However, the sale value of shares could not be added; only the capital gain, if any, could be taxed. The ground regarding set-off of F&O loss was rejected due to lack of supporting details.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and added the entire purchase and sale value of shares (Rs. 24,10,916/-) as unexplained income under Section 69, as the assessee could not provide details. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire sale value of shares can be added as unexplained income when the purchase value is already added, and whether F&O losses can be set off without supporting details.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: (Retd.) Justice C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 31.1.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A)-50, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,10,916/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Learned AR submitted that the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has carried out transactions in Bombay Stock Exchange. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has purchased the shares at a cost of Rs.13,85,326/- and sold shares for Rs. 10,25,590/-. Since the assessee did not furnish any detail relating to purchases and sales of 2 Mr. Prakashmal M. Adani shares, the Assessing Officer assessed both the value of purchase and sales aggregating to Rs. 24,10,916/- as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal.
4. The Learned AR submitted that the above said share transaction was carried out by the father of the assessee who has since expired. He submitted that the assessee does not have any records/details relating to purchase and sale of shares pointed out by the AO. He further submitted that the AO also did not share the relevant details with the assessee. He submitted that the details given by the assessing officer would show that the assessee has actually suffered loss of around Rs. 3.59 lakhs (Rs.13,85,326/- less Rs.10,25,590/-). Accordingly, he submitted that no addition is called for under section 69 of the Act.
On the contrary, learned DR submitted that the assessee has not explained the source of purchase of shares and hence the Assessing Officer has assessed the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The AO has also assessed the sale value of shares, since the assessee did not file any details thereof.
At this stage, the Bench pointed out that the addition of sale value of shares cannot be made, when the entire value of purchases of shares is added. The learned DR submitted that the view expressed by the bench is acceptable in principle, but the AO was constrained to make the addition in the absence of any details.
We noticed that the details of purchase and sale of shares are not available either with the assessee or with the assessing officer. There should not be any dispute that, if an assessee is not able to furnish the details of sources for making investment, the same is assessable as income of the 3 Mr. Prakashmal M. Adani assessee u/s 69 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee could not explain the sources for making investments in shares to the tune of Rs.13,85,326/-. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO was justified in making addition of purchase value of shares amounting to Rs. 13,85,326/-.
With regard to the sale of shares, in the absence of any other details, it may be presumed that the assessee has sold the shares out of the shares purchased by him earlier. In that case, the capital gain, if any, arising on sale of shares alone can be brought to tax and not entire sale value. However, in the instant case, it is not known as to whether the assessee has made profit or incurred loss. Considering the sale value of shares at Rs.10,25,590/-, it is the contention of the Ld A.R that the assessee has actually incurred loss. In any case, entire sale value of shares cannot be assessed to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing sale value of shares. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restrict the addition under section 69 of the Act to Rs. 13,85,326/-.
The assessee has also raised a ground submitting that the F&O loss of Rs. 23,91,825/- should be allowed to be set off against the income assessed by the Assessing Officer. However, we noticed that the assessee has not furnished any details supporting to the loss so claimed by him. Accordingly, the above said ground is liable to be rejected.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 14.12.2023.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026