ACIT,CIRCLE-20(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYESH UMAKANT MANANIA, MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2011–12, whereby the learned CIT(A) deleted Jayesh Umakant Manania the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011–12 on 31.08.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 16,30,172/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, based on information received from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai, arising from a search under section 132 conducted in the case of Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar and a survey under section 133A in the case of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

The information forwarded to the Assessing Officer comprised certain images and loose notings allegedly retrieved from the mobile phone (iPhone 6 Plus) of Shri Pankaj Goshar, purportedly recording cash transactions relating to booking of flats in a real estate project of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF.On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 and completed reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 by order dated 22.12.2018, determining total income at Rs. 86,30,172/-, after making an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment, being the alleged cash Jayesh Umakant Manania payment attributable to the assessee for the year under consideration.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Apart from challenging the addition on merits, the assessee also raised jurisdictional grounds, including the plea that proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 153C.The learned CIT(A) admitted the additional legal grounds and held that the reassessment under section 147 was valid. However, on merits, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/-.

While granting relief, the learned CIT(A) recorded that the entire addition was based solely on third-party electronic images and loose notings, the said material was neither in the handwriting of the assessee nor recovered from his possession, there was no corroborative evidence and both Shri Pankaj Goshar and Shri Ajay Vishrani (Karta of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF) had categorically denied receipt of any cash from the assessee. The learned CIT(A) further relied upon the decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench in the cases of Kalyanji Velji HUF and Nimesh Umakant Manania, involving identical seized material, wherein such notings were held to be “dumb documents” incapable of sustaining additions.

The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer.

We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012–13, on identical facts and on the basis of the same category of seized material, has examined this issue in detail and upheld the deletion of the addition.

The factual matrix in the year under consideration is identical. The Revenue has not demonstrated any distinguishing feature warranting a departure from the aforesaid decision. Judicial discipline and consistency require that a Co-ordinate Bench decision in the assessee’s own case on identical facts be followed.

We therefore find no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) is reasoned, factually supported, and in consonance with binding judicial precedents.