REKHA MANISH KAPADIA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC-8(2), MUMBA

ORDER PER BENCH

These appeals by the captioned assessee(s) arise from separate These appeals by the captioned assessee(s) arise from separate These appeals by the captioned assessee(s) arise from separate but contemporaneous orders passed by the Learned Commissioner but contemporaneous orders passed by the Learned Commissioner but contemporaneous orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) tax (Appeals)–50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the 50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to assessment years 2014 Ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to assessment years 2014- -15 to 2019-20, respectively. Inasmuch as the issues involved in all these appeals respectively. Inasmuch as the issues involved in all these appeals respectively. Inasmuch as the issues involved in all these appeals are common, they were heard together, and are being disposed of by are common, they were heard together, and are being disposed of by are common, they were heard together, and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and in the this consolidated order for the sake of convenience this consolidated order for the sake of convenience interest of procedural uniformity interest of procedural uniformity.

2. We shall first adv We shall first advert to the appeal of Smt. Rekha Manish Smt. Rekha Manish Kapadia for assessment year 2014 for assessment year 2014-15, which was taken up as the 15, which was taken up as the lead matter. It was fairly agreed by both the parties that the lead matter. It was fairly agreed by both the parties that the lead matter. It was fairly agreed by both the parties that the adjudication in the said appeal would, adjudication in the said appeal would, mutatis mutandis mutatis mutandis, govern the ng appeals as well, as the underlying facts disposal of the remaini disposal of the remaining appeals as well, as the underlying facts and circumstances being substantially identical, barring variations and circumstances being substantially identical, barring variations and circumstances being substantially identical, barring variations in the quantum of additions. in the quantum of additions.

2.1 The grounds raised by the The grounds raised by the assessee in Rekha Manish Kapadia in Rekha Manish Kapadia in appeal for assessment year 2014 in appeal for assessment year 2014-15 are reproduced as under: 15 are reproduced as under:

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred upholding learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred upholding learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred upholding the action of learned assessing officer of treating the business the action of learned assessing officer of treating the business the action of learned assessing officer of treating the business activities as accommodation entry without appreciating the activities as accommodation entry without appreciating the activities as accommodation entry without appreciating the submission submission submission / / / documentary documentary documentary evidence evidence evidence provide provide provide to to to prove prove prove the the the genuineness of all the Audited purchase and sale submitted by ess of all the Audited purchase and sale submitted by ess of all the Audited purchase and sale submitted by appellant.

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) has erred not learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) has erred not learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) has erred not allowing the assessee's appeal for disapproving the learn Assessi allowing the assessee's appeal for disapproving the learn Assessi allowing the assessee's appeal for disapproving the learn Assessing officer's view of rejecting the Books officer's view of rejecting the Books of Accounts and Income of and Income of appellant by invoking the provision of sectior 145 (3) of the income appellant by invoking the provision of sectior 145 (3) of the income appellant by invoking the provision of sectior 145 (3) of the income tax Act, 1961. tax Act, 1961.

5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in allowing the respondent made an add erred in allowing the respondent made an addition u/s. 68 of Rs. ition u/s. 68 of Rs. 2,75,000/-/- in respect of unsecured loan appearing in audited in respect of unsecured loan appearing in audited Balance Sheet of the appellant prepared from the books of accounts Balance Sheet of the appellant prepared from the books of accounts Balance Sheet of the appellant prepared from the books of accounts which were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. The said loan was which were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. The said loan was which were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. The said loan was availed from my husband Manish Kapadia [(PAN availed from my husband Manish Kapadia [(PAN: AAPPK5676H)] : AAPPK5676H)] which was received and credited in Books of Accounts prior which was received and credited in Books of Accounts prior which was received and credited in Books of Accounts prior 01.04.2013 and is also appearing in the books of accounts in my 01.04.2013 and is also appearing in the books of accounts in my 01.04.2013 and is also appearing in the books of accounts in my husband Manish Kapadia as Loans husband Manish Kapadia as Loans & Advances.

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 4 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 World Group” entities along with residential and office premises of entities along with residential and office premises of entities along with residential and office premises of the assessee.

3.1 Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 24.03.2021. In response thereto, the 153A of the Act was issued on 24.03.2021. In response thereto, the 153A of the Act was issued on 24.03.2021. In response thereto, the assessee filed her return of income on 23.0 assessee filed her return of income on 23.03.2021 declaring a total 3.2021 declaring a total income of ₹8,61,740/ 8,61,740/-. Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) . Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on 24.01.2021, followed by of the Act was issued and served on 24.01.2021, followed by of the Act was issued and served on 24.01.2021, followed by multiple statutory notices under section 142(1) calling for multiple statutory notices under section 142(1) calling for multiple statutory notices under section 142(1) calling for explanations and supporting evidences, parti explanations and supporting evidences, particularly concerning the cularly concerning the allegedly bogus purchase and sales transactions unearthed during allegedly bogus purchase and sales transactions unearthed during allegedly bogus purchase and sales transactions unearthed during the search.

3.2 As the assessee did not furnish any response to the As the assessee did not furnish any response to the As the assessee did not furnish any response to the aforementioned notices, the Assessing Officer issued a final show- aforementioned notices, the Assessing Officer issued a final show aforementioned notices, the Assessing Officer issued a final show cause notice dated 14.09.2021 requ cause notice dated 14.09.2021 requiring the assessee to explain iring the assessee to explain why the assessment should not be framed ex parte. In the why the assessment should not be framed ex parte. In the why the assessment should not be framed ex parte. In the continued absence of compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded continued absence of compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded continued absence of compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to complete the assessment ex parte under section 153A read with under section 153A read with section 144 of the Act on 28.09.2021, d section 144 of the Act on 28.09.2021, determining the total income etermining the total income at ₹2,66,61,017/-.

3.3 In the assessment, the Assessing Officer held that the In the assessment, the Assessing Officer held that the In the assessment, the Assessing Officer held that the transactions recorded by the assessee represented accommodation transactions recorded by the assessee represented accommodation transactions recorded by the assessee represented accommodation entries in respect of bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section entries in respect of bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section entries in respect of bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section 145(3) of the Act, he rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected the books of account and, treating the Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 5 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 assessee as an entry operator, estimated commission income at 5% assessee as an entry operator, estimated commission income at 5% assessee as an entry operator, estimated commission income at 5% of the declared turnover of ₹51,78,40,543/-, resulting in an , resulting in an of the declared turnover of addition of ₹2,58,92,027/ 2,58,92,027/-. The Assessing Officer further made an . The Assessing Officer further made an addition of ₹2,75,000/ ,75,000/- under section 68 of the Act, treating the under section 68 of the Act, treating the unsecured loan reflected in the books as unexplained cash credit. unsecured loan reflected in the books as unexplained cash credit. unsecured loan reflected in the books as unexplained cash credit.

4.1 It was further submitted tha It was further submitted that, simultaneous with the search t, simultaneous with the search conducted in the case of the One World Group entities and Shri conducted in the case of the One World Group entities and Shri conducted in the case of the One World Group entities and Shri Hemendra Kapadia, a search was also executed at the assessee’s Hemendra Kapadia, a search was also executed at the assessee’s Hemendra Kapadia, a search was also executed at the assessee’s premises. During the search of One World Group companies, the premises. During the search of One World Group companies, the premises. During the search of One World Group companies, the Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 6 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 statement of Shri Urvil Jani, Direct statement of Shri Urvil Jani, Director of the group, was recorded on or of the group, was recorded on oath, wherein he admitted that the group had artificially inflated its oath, wherein he admitted that the group had artificially inflated its oath, wherein he admitted that the group had artificially inflated its turnover by engaging in paper transactions with entities owned or turnover by engaging in paper transactions with entities owned or turnover by engaging in paper transactions with entities owned or controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia, including the assessee’s controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia, including the assessee’s controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia, including the assessee’s concern.

4.2 The assessee contended that the entire addition made by the e contended that the entire addition made by the e contended that the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer rested exclusively upon the statements of Shri Assessing Officer rested exclusively upon the statements of Shri Assessing Officer rested exclusively upon the statements of Shri Urvil Jani and Shri Hemendra Kapadia, without affording the Urvil Jani and Shri Hemendra Kapadia, without affording the Urvil Jani and Shri Hemendra Kapadia, without affording the assessee any meaningful opportunity of rebuttal. It was further assessee any meaningful opportunity of rebuttal. It was further assessee any meaningful opportunity of rebuttal. It was further urged that the swo urged that the sworn statement of the assessee’s husband, rn statement of the assessee’s husband, explaining the arrangement under which Shri Kapadia was explaining the arrangement under which Shri Kapadia was explaining the arrangement under which Shri Kapadia was permitted to run the business in return for fixed monthly profits, permitted to run the business in return for fixed monthly profits, permitted to run the business in return for fixed monthly profits, was disregarded without cogent reasons. was disregarded without cogent reasons.

4.3 Without prejudice, it was also argued that, even Without prejudice, it was also argued that, even Without prejudice, it was also argued that, even assuming the entry operation, the business was treated as an accommodation business was treated as an accommodation-entry operation, the rate of commission could not reasonably exceed 0.05% to 0.5 paisa rate of commission could not reasonably exceed 0.05% to 0.5 paisa rate of commission could not reasonably exceed 0.05% to 0.5 paisa on turnover.

4.4 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, the The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, the The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, the submissions of the assessee, and the m submissions of the assessee, and the material gathered during the aterial gathered during the course of search, noted that the assessee’s proprietary concern, course of search, noted that the assessee’s proprietary concern, course of search, noted that the assessee’s proprietary concern, M/s R M Textiles, as well as related concerns of her husband, had M/s R M Textiles, as well as related concerns of her husband, had M/s R M Textiles, as well as related concerns of her husband, had substantial transactions with entities of the One World Group. substantial transactions with entities of the One World Group. substantial transactions with entities of the One World Group. During the search on both the asse During the search on both the assessee and her husband, no ssee and her husband, no Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 7 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 documentary evidence supporting actual business activity—such as documentary evidence supporting actual business activity documentary evidence supporting actual business activity records of stock, transportation, delivery, or party-wise purchase records of stock, transportation, delivery, or party records of stock, transportation, delivery, or party and sales details—was found. On the contrary, statements recorded was found. On the contrary, statements recorded was found. On the contrary, statements recorded under section 132(4) from the ass under section 132(4) from the assessee’s husband, Shri Manish essee’s husband, Shri Manish Kapadia, and from Shri Hemendra Kapadia established that the Kapadia, and from Shri Hemendra Kapadia established that the Kapadia, and from Shri Hemendra Kapadia established that the business concerns were effectively controlled and managed by Shri business concerns were effectively controlled and managed by Shri business concerns were effectively controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia, and that the transactions reflected in the books Hemendra Kapadia, and that the transactions reflected in the books Hemendra Kapadia, and that the transactions reflected in the books were merely accommodation entries were merely accommodation entries without any genuine movement without any genuine movement of goods.

4.5 The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that these admissions stood The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that these admissions stood The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that these admissions stood corroborated by the statement of Shri Urvil Jani, Director of the corroborated by the statement of Shri Urvil Jani, Director of the corroborated by the statement of Shri Urvil Jani, Director of the One World Group, who confirmed that the group had used entities One World Group, who confirmed that the group had used entities One World Group, who confirmed that the group had used entities managed by Shri Hemend managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia, including the assessee’s ra Kapadia, including the assessee’s concern, for concern, for concern, for inflating purchases and inflating purchases inflating purchases and sales through paper and sales through paper sales through paper transactions. In light of these consistent findings, the Ld. CIT(A) transactions. In light of these consistent findings, the Ld. CIT(A) transactions. In light of these consistent findings, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the books of account maintained by the assessee were held that the books of account maintained by the assessee were held that the books of account maintained by the assessee were unreliable and had been rightly unreliable and had been rightly rejected under section 145(3) of the rejected under section 145(3) of the Act.

4.6 Regarding the turnover disclosed by the assessee, the Ld. Regarding the turnover disclosed by the assessee, the Ld. Regarding the turnover disclosed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that although only part of the sales pertained to One CIT(A) noted that although only part of the sales pertained to One CIT(A) noted that although only part of the sales pertained to One World Group entities, the assessee had not produced any evidence World Group entities, the assessee had not produced any evidence World Group entities, the assessee had not produced any evidence genuineness of the remaining transactions with to substantiate the genuineness of the remaining transactions with genuineness of the remaining transactions with non-group parties. In the absence of such evidence, and group parties. In the absence of such evidence, and group parties. In the absence of such evidence, and Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 8 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 considering the admitted modus operandi of Shri Hemendra considering the admitted modus operandi of Shri Hemendra considering the admitted modus operandi of Shri Hemendra Kapadia, he held that the entire turnover was liable to be treated as Kapadia, he held that the entire turnover was liable to be treated as Kapadia, he held that the entire turnover was liable to be treated as arising from accommodatio arising from accommodation entries.

4.7 On the issue of the rate of commission, the Assessing Officer On the issue of the rate of commission, the Assessing Officer On the issue of the rate of commission, the Assessing Officer had applied 5%. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the judicial had applied 5%. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the judicial had applied 5%. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee precedents relied upon by the assessee—particularly the decision of particularly the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Anil Kumar v. Shri Anil Kumar v. ITO—considered a commission rate of 3% to be fair and reasonable. considered a commission rate of 3% to be fair and reasonable. considered a commission rate of 3% to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, while upholding the rejection of books and the Accordingly, while upholding the rejection of books and the Accordingly, while upholding the rejection of books and the estimation of commission on the total turnover of estimation of commission on the total turnover of ₹ ₹51.78 crore, he restricted the applicable rate to 3%, granti restricted the applicable rate to 3%, granting partial relief to the ng partial relief to the assessee.

4.8 The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “8. I have considered the assessment order, submission of the 8. I have considered the assessment order, submission of the 8. I have considered the assessment order, submission of the appellant and facts available on record in this case. A search u/s appellant and facts available on record in this case. A search u/s appellant and facts available on record in this case. A search u/s 132 of the IT Act was 132 of the IT Act was conducted on the appellant along with the conducted on the appellant along with the One World Group entities. During the search, it was found that One World Group entities. During the search, it was found that One World Group entities. During the search, it was found that M/s R M Textiles, a proprietary concern of the appellant, had M/s R M Textiles, a proprietary concern of the appellant, had M/s R M Textiles, a proprietary concern of the appellant, had major transactions with the One World Group entities. A search major transactions with the One World Group entities. A search major transactions with the One World Group entities. A search was also conducted on Shri was also conducted on Shri Manish Kapadia, husband of the Manish Kapadia, husband of the appellant, who is the proprietor of M/s R K Impex and M/s R K appellant, who is the proprietor of M/s R K Impex and M/s R K appellant, who is the proprietor of M/s R K Impex and M/s R K Traders. These concerns also had significant transactions with Traders. These concerns also had significant transactions with Traders. These concerns also had significant transactions with One World Group entities. During the search, a statement of Shri One World Group entities. During the search, a statement of Shri One World Group entities. During the search, a statement of Shri Manish Kapadia was recorded u/s 13 Manish Kapadia was recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. In this 2(4) of the IT Act. In this statement, it was stated that he was not involved in any actual statement, it was stated that he was not involved in any actual statement, it was stated that he was not involved in any actual business transactions with any of the One World Group entities business transactions with any of the One World Group entities business transactions with any of the One World Group entities and all the business activities of M/s R K Traders, M/s R K Impex and all the business activities of M/s R K Traders, M/s R K Impex and all the business activities of M/s R K Traders, M/s R K Impex and M/s R M Textiles were managed a and M/s R M Textiles were managed and controlled by Shri nd controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. Further, no documentary evidence regarding Hemendra Kapadia. Further, no documentary evidence regarding Hemendra Kapadia. Further, no documentary evidence regarding the purchases and sales were found with Shri Manish Kapadia. the purchases and sales were found with Shri Manish Kapadia. the purchases and sales were found with Shri Manish Kapadia.

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 9 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025

8.2 During the search, the statement of Shri Hemendra Kapadia 8.2 During the search, the statement of Shri Hemendra Kapadia 8.2 During the search, the statement of Shri Hemendra Kapadia was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, wherei was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, wherein he has stated n he has stated that there was no actual delivery of goods to One World concerns. that there was no actual delivery of goods to One World concerns. that there was no actual delivery of goods to One World concerns. Only bills were provided to them whenever they demanded the Only bills were provided to them whenever they demanded the Only bills were provided to them whenever they demanded the same. Thus, Shri Hemendra Kapadia has admitted in this same. Thus, Shri Hemendra Kapadia has admitted in this same. Thus, Shri Hemendra Kapadia has admitted in this statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act that the entiti statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act that the entiti statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act that the entities M/s R K Traders, M/s R K Impex, and M/s R M Textiles were controlled K Traders, M/s R K Impex, and M/s R M Textiles were controlled K Traders, M/s R K Impex, and M/s R M Textiles were controlled and managed by him and he was engaged in providing and managed by him and he was engaged in providing and managed by him and he was engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchase and sale accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchase and sale accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchase and sale bills without any actual supply of goods. bills without any actual supply of goods. 8.3 During the search on One W 8.3 During the search on One World Group, the statement of Shri orld Group, the statement of Shri Urvil A. Jani, director of One World Group entities, was recorded Urvil A. Jani, director of One World Group entities, was recorded Urvil A. Jani, director of One World Group entities, was recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act on 08.11.2019. In this statement, Shri u/s 132(4) of the IT Act on 08.11.2019. In this statement, Shri u/s 132(4) of the IT Act on 08.11.2019. In this statement, Shri Urvil Jani has confirmed the statement given by Shri Hemendra Urvil Jani has confirmed the statement given by Shri Hemendra Urvil Jani has confirmed the statement given by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. It is further admitte Kapadia. It is further admitted that he has used the entities run d that he has used the entities run and controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia to inflate purchases and controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia to inflate purchases and controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia to inflate purchases and sales. There was no actual movement of goods and only and sales. There was no actual movement of goods and only and sales. There was no actual movement of goods and only billing was done. Thus, Shri Urvil Jani has accepted the fact that billing was done. Thus, Shri Urvil Jani has accepted the fact that billing was done. Thus, Shri Urvil Jani has accepted the fact that One World Group entities have ente One World Group entities have entered into bogus purchase and red into bogus purchase and sales transactions with the entities controlled and managed by sales transactions with the entities controlled and managed by sales transactions with the entities controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. Shri Hemendra Kapadia. 8.4 From the above facts unearthed during the search conducted 8.4 From the above facts unearthed during the search conducted 8.4 From the above facts unearthed during the search conducted on the appellant and on One World Group, it is evident that the on the appellant and on One World Group, it is evident that the on the appellant and on One World Group, it is evident that the proprietary con proprietary concern of the appellant was totally controlled and cern of the appellant was totally controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. In this concern, no actual managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. In this concern, no actual managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. In this concern, no actual business activity was carried out and all the transactions shown business activity was carried out and all the transactions shown business activity was carried out and all the transactions shown in the books of account are paper transactions. in the books of account are paper transactions. 8.5 In the assessment order, the 8.5 In the assessment order, the AO noted that at the fag end of AO noted that at the fag end of assessment, the appellant has submitted the basic documents like assessment, the appellant has submitted the basic documents like assessment, the appellant has submitted the basic documents like the copy of the return of income, computation of income and the copy of the return of income, computation of income and the copy of the return of income, computation of income and financials. The appellant has not furnished the details like party financials. The appellant has not furnished the details like party financials. The appellant has not furnished the details like party- wise purchase and sales, documen wise purchase and sales, documents showing transportation of ts showing transportation of goods, proof of delivery, address of place for delivery of goods etc. goods, proof of delivery, address of place for delivery of goods etc. goods, proof of delivery, address of place for delivery of goods etc. It is further noted that in the absence of these details, the AO could It is further noted that in the absence of these details, the AO could It is further noted that in the absence of these details, the AO could not carry out independent inquiries regarding the purchases and not carry out independent inquiries regarding the purchases and not carry out independent inquiries regarding the purchases and sales shown by the app sales shown by the appellant. As per the findings of the search, it ellant. As per the findings of the search, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not carried out any is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not carried out any is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not carried out any actual actual actual business business business transactions transactions transactions and and and has has has provided provided provided only only only accommodation entries. The AO held that the books of accounts accommodation entries. The AO held that the books of accounts accommodation entries. The AO held that the books of accounts maintained are incorrect and hen maintained are incorrect and hence, unreliable. Accordingly, the ce, unreliable. Accordingly, the AO rejected the books of accounts as per the provisions of section AO rejected the books of accounts as per the provisions of section AO rejected the books of accounts as per the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act and estimated the commission income @5% on 145(3) of the IT Act and estimated the commission income @5% on 145(3) of the IT Act and estimated the commission income @5% on total turnover shown of Rs.51,78,40,543/ total turnover shown of Rs.51,78,40,543/-.

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 10 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025

8.6 During the appeal proceedings, several notice 8.6 During the appeal proceedings, several notices for hearing s for hearing were issued to the appellant. In response to these notices, the were issued to the appellant. In response to these notices, the were issued to the appellant. In response to these notices, the appellant has filed a submission dated 21.12.2023 as reproduced appellant has filed a submission dated 21.12.2023 as reproduced appellant has filed a submission dated 21.12.2023 as reproduced above. In this submission, the appellant contended that she was above. In this submission, the appellant contended that she was above. In this submission, the appellant contended that she was engaged in textile trading business since 2010 wit engaged in textile trading business since 2010 with the assistance h the assistance of her husband. However, due to health issues faced by her of her husband. However, due to health issues faced by her of her husband. However, due to health issues faced by her husband, the responsibility of running the business activity was husband, the responsibility of running the business activity was husband, the responsibility of running the business activity was handed over to Shri Hemendra Kapadia. Thus, there is no dispute handed over to Shri Hemendra Kapadia. Thus, there is no dispute handed over to Shri Hemendra Kapadia. Thus, there is no dispute on the facts unearthed during the search that the p on the facts unearthed during the search that the p on the facts unearthed during the search that the proprietary concern of the appellant (M/s RM Textiles) was controlled and concern of the appellant (M/s RM Textiles) was controlled and concern of the appellant (M/s RM Textiles) was controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. The appellant has admitted managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. The appellant has admitted managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. The appellant has admitted that her business was entirely managed and controlled by Shri that her business was entirely managed and controlled by Shri that her business was entirely managed and controlled by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. Hemendra Kapadia. 8.7 The appellant further contended that d 8.7 The appellant further contended that during the year under uring the year under consideration, out of total sales shown of Rs.26,87,14,833/ consideration, out of total sales shown of Rs.26,87,14,833/ consideration, out of total sales shown of Rs.26,87,14,833/-, the sales with the One World Group entities are of Rs. 12,72,10,096/ sales with the One World Group entities are of Rs. 12,72,10,096/ sales with the One World Group entities are of Rs. 12,72,10,096/- only. Further, there is no purchase made from One World Group only. Further, there is no purchase made from One World Group only. Further, there is no purchase made from One World Group entities. However, the AO assessed the co entities. However, the AO assessed the commission income on mmission income on total purchases and sales of Rs.51,78,40,543/ total purchases and sales of Rs.51,78,40,543/-. It is further . It is further contended that the estimation of commission @5% is on the higher contended that the estimation of commission @5% is on the higher contended that the estimation of commission @5% is on the higher side. For the same, the appellant has relied on decisions of the side. For the same, the appellant has relied on decisions of the side. For the same, the appellant has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT. 8.8 From the submissions of the 8.8 From the submissions of the appellant, it is evident that the appellant, it is evident that the appellant has not disputed the fact that the turnover shown with appellant has not disputed the fact that the turnover shown with appellant has not disputed the fact that the turnover shown with the One World Group entities is bogus. The only contention is the One World Group entities is bogus. The only contention is the One World Group entities is bogus. The only contention is regarding the estimation of commission on other transactions with regarding the estimation of commission on other transactions with regarding the estimation of commission on other transactions with non-One World Group entities One World Group entities and rate of percentage of and rate of percentage of commission on such transactions. commission on such transactions. 8.9 Regarding the remaining purchase and sales with the other 8.9 Regarding the remaining purchase and sales with the other 8.9 Regarding the remaining purchase and sales with the other parties, the appellant's contention is that the same are genuine parties, the appellant's contention is that the same are genuine parties, the appellant's contention is that the same are genuine and hence, no commission income can be estimated on such and hence, no commission income can be estimated on such and hence, no commission income can be estimated on such transactions. In the year under consideration, the appellant has . In the year under consideration, the appellant has . In the year under consideration, the appellant has shown total sale of Rs.26,87,14,833/ shown total sale of Rs.26,87,14,833/-, out of which sales of Rs. , out of which sales of Rs. 12,72,10,096/ 12,72,10,096/- is shown with other than One World Group is shown with other than One World Group entities. entities. entities. However, However, However, the the the appellant appellant appellant has has has not not not furnished furnished furnished any any any documentary evidence to est documentary evidence to establish the fact that the other purchase ablish the fact that the other purchase and sales shown are from genuine business activity. It is an and sales shown are from genuine business activity. It is an and sales shown are from genuine business activity. It is an admitted fact that the activities of the proprietary concern of the admitted fact that the activities of the proprietary concern of the admitted fact that the activities of the proprietary concern of the appellant have been controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra appellant have been controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra appellant have been controlled and managed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia. No documentary evi Kapadia. No documentary evidence regarding actual business dence regarding actual business activity and stock was found during the search. In the statement activity and stock was found during the search. In the statement activity and stock was found during the search. In the statement recorded during the search u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, Shri recorded during the search u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, Shri recorded during the search u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, Shri Hemendra Kapadia has admitted that he has not carried out any Hemendra Kapadia has admitted that he has not carried out any Hemendra Kapadia has admitted that he has not carried out any actual purchase and sale transaction. T actual purchase and sale transaction. Thus, as per the admission hus, as per the admission

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 11 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 of Hemendra Kapadia and findings of the search, there was no of Hemendra Kapadia and findings of the search, there was no of Hemendra Kapadia and findings of the search, there was no actual business activity carried out by the appellant's concern. actual business activity carried out by the appellant's concern. actual business activity carried out by the appellant's concern. Further, during the assessment proceedings as well as during the Further, during the assessment proceedings as well as during the Further, during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appeal proceedings, despite giving seve appeal proceedings, despite giving several opportunities, the ral opportunities, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to establish the fact that any genuine business activity has been establish the fact that any genuine business activity has been establish the fact that any genuine business activity has been carried out by the appellant's concern. Therefore, the contention of carried out by the appellant's concern. Therefore, the contention of carried out by the appellant's concern. Therefore, the contention of the appellant deserves to be rejected. the appellant deserves to be rejected. 8.10 As there is a specific finding unearthed during the search s there is a specific finding unearthed during the search s there is a specific finding unearthed during the search that the appellant has not carried out any genuine business that the appellant has not carried out any genuine business that the appellant has not carried out any genuine business activity and was involved in providing bogus purchase and sale activity and was involved in providing bogus purchase and sale activity and was involved in providing bogus purchase and sale bills, the books of accounts maintained by the appellant are bills, the books of accounts maintained by the appellant are bills, the books of accounts maintained by the appellant are incorrect and incorrect and hence, unreliable. Therefore, the same are to be hence, unreliable. Therefore, the same are to be rejected as per the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act. rejected as per the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act. rejected as per the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I upheld the decision of the AO rejecting the books of Accordingly, I upheld the decision of the AO rejecting the books of Accordingly, I upheld the decision of the AO rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the commission on the total turnover. accounts and estimating the commission on the total turnover. accounts and estimating the commission on the total turnover. 8.11 Now comi 8.11 Now coming to the rate of commission to be charged for ng to the rate of commission to be charged for estimation of income, the AO has estimated the commission @5%, estimation of income, the AO has estimated the commission @5%, estimation of income, the AO has estimated the commission @5%, whereas the appellant has contended that the commission is to be whereas the appellant has contended that the commission is to be whereas the appellant has contended that the commission is to be estimated @0.05% to 0.2%. To support her contention, the estimated @0.05% to 0.2%. To support her contention, the estimated @0.05% to 0.2%. To support her contention, the appellant has relied on appellant has relied on the decision of Shri Anil Kumar vs ITO the decision of Shri Anil Kumar vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) and decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary (ITAT Delhi) and decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary (ITAT Delhi) and decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary vs ACIT, (ITAT Surat). I have perused the decisions relied upon by vs ACIT, (ITAT Surat). I have perused the decisions relied upon by vs ACIT, (ITAT Surat). I have perused the decisions relied upon by the appellant. It is seen that the Honorable Delhi ITAT, in the case the appellant. It is seen that the Honorable Delhi ITAT, in the case the appellant. It is seen that the Honorable Delhi ITAT, in the case of Shri Anil Kuma of Shri Anil Kumar vs ITO (ITA NO 6002/DEL/2017), has upheld r vs ITO (ITA NO 6002/DEL/2017), has upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) in estimating the commission @3%. the decision of the CIT(Appeals) in estimating the commission @3%. the decision of the CIT(Appeals) in estimating the commission @3%. This decision is relevant and applicable in the facts of the case of This decision is relevant and applicable in the facts of the case of This decision is relevant and applicable in the facts of the case of the appellant. The other decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat in the the appellant. The other decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat in the the appellant. The other decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Shri. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary is in the context of Shri. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary is in the context of Shri. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary is in the context of different set of facts. The issue involved is the import of rough and different set of facts. The issue involved is the import of rough and different set of facts. The issue involved is the import of rough and cut polished diamonds and hence, this decision is not applicable in cut polished diamonds and hence, this decision is not applicable in cut polished diamonds and hence, this decision is not applicable in the facts of the appellant. the facts of the appellant. Therefore, following the decision of the Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Anil Kumar vs. ITO, which is also relied upon by the case of Shri Anil Kumar vs. ITO, which is also relied upon by the case of Shri Anil Kumar vs. ITO, which is also relied upon by the appellant, I direct the AO to adopt the rate of commission @3% on appellant, I direct the AO to adopt the rate of commission @3% on appellant, I direct the AO to adopt the rate of commission @3% on the total turnover of Rs.51,78,40,543/ the total turnover of Rs.51,78,40,543/- instead of 5%. Accordingly, instead of 5%. Accordingly, appeal on this ground is PART appeal on this ground is PARTIALLY ALLOWED.”

5.1 Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee urged that the entire operations were, in fact, conceived, directed, and executed by entire operations were, in fact, conceived, directed, and executed by entire operations were, in fact, conceived, directed, and executed by Shri Hemendra Kapadia, and that any commission attributable to Shri Hemendra Kapadia, and that any commission attributable to Shri Hemendra Kapadia, and that any commission attributable to the impugned transactions ought, if at all, to have been brought to the impugned transactions ought, if at all, to have been brought to the impugned transactions ought, if at all, to have been brought to tax in his hands and not in the hands o tax in his hands and not in the hands of the assessee. The record, f the assessee. The record, however, belies the foundation of such a plea. The assessee has not however, belies the foundation of such a plea. The assessee has not however, belies the foundation of such a plea. The assessee has not produced before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) any produced before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) any produced before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) any contemporaneous documentary evidence contemporaneous documentary evidence—whether in the nature of whether in the nature of purchase and sales registers, d purchase and sales registers, delivery challans, transportation elivery challans, transportation records, or other primary documents records, or other primary documents—to substantiate the existence to substantiate the existence of genuine trading activity. The few ledger extracts eventually filed of genuine trading activity. The few ledger extracts eventually filed of genuine trading activity. The few ledger extracts eventually filed were tendered only at the eleventh hour, leaving no opportunity for were tendered only at the eleventh hour, leaving no opportunity for were tendered only at the eleventh hour, leaving no opportunity for meaningful verification; and significantly, no application seeking tion; and significantly, no application seeking tion; and significantly, no application seeking admission of additional evidence was preferred before the Ld. admission of additional evidence was preferred before the Ld. admission of additional evidence was preferred before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.2 In the absence of even the rudiments of proof supporting the In the absence of even the rudiments of proof supporting the In the absence of even the rudiments of proof supporting the claim that actual trading in textile goods was undertaken during claim that actual trading in textile goods was undertaken during claim that actual trading in textile goods was undertaken during the relevant year, the assessee’s contention cannot be accepted. The evant year, the assessee’s contention cannot be accepted. The evant year, the assessee’s contention cannot be accepted. The Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 13 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 finding that the alleged transactions bore the character of finding that the alleged transactions bore the character of finding that the alleged transactions bore the character of accommodation entries thus stands on firm factual foundation. accommodation entries thus stands on firm factual foundation. accommodation entries thus stands on firm factual foundation.

5.3 The further grievance that the interest income of The further grievance that the interest income of The further grievance that the interest income of ₹4,10,010/- has been treated as part of the operational income also merits no en treated as part of the operational income also merits no en treated as part of the operational income also merits no acceptance. The assessee herself has disclosed such amount as acceptance. The assessee herself has disclosed such amount as acceptance. The assessee herself has disclosed such amount as interest income; the Assessing Officer has merely brought it to tax interest income; the Assessing Officer has merely brought it to tax interest income; the Assessing Officer has merely brought it to tax in accordance with its true character. No infirmity, factual or legal, in accordance with its true character. No infirmity, factual or le in accordance with its true character. No infirmity, factual or le attaches to the approach adopted by the lower authority. attaches to the approach adopted by the lower authority. attaches to the approach adopted by the lower authority.

5.4 Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions and Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions and Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions and the evidence—or the conspicuous want thereof or the conspicuous want thereof—we discern no error we discern no error in the conclusions arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A). The rejection of the in the conclusions arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A). The rejection of t in the conclusions arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A). The rejection of t books of account and the estimation of commission income have books of account and the estimation of commission income have books of account and the estimation of commission income have been rightly upheld.

5.5 In the result, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee stand dismissed.

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 14 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 recorded as a loan and advance in the books of Shri Manish recorded as a loan and advance in the books of Shri Manish recorded as a loan and advance in the books of Shri Manish Kapadia, well prior to 01.04.2013. Kapadia, well prior to 01.04.2013.

6.1 In principle, if the credit pertains to a period preceding In principle, if the credit pertains to a period preceding In principle, if the credit pertains to a period preceding 01.04.2013, the same cannot be brought to tax as an unexplained 01.04.2013, the same cannot be brought to tax as an unexplained 01.04.2013, the same cannot be brought to tax as an unexplained cash credit in the assessment year under consideration. However, t in the assessment year under consideration. However, t in the assessment year under consideration. However, the assessee has not produced any contemporaneous documentary the assessee has not produced any contemporaneous documentary the assessee has not produced any contemporaneous documentary evidence—such as bank statements, confirmations, or supporting such as bank statements, confirmations, or supporting such as bank statements, confirmations, or supporting ledger entries—to substantiate the factum and timing of the loan. In to substantiate the factum and timing of the loan. In to substantiate the factum and timing of the loan. In the absence of such material, the matter cannot be conclusively ence of such material, the matter cannot be conclusively ence of such material, the matter cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. adjudicated at this stage.

6.2 In the interests of justice, therefore, we consider it appropriate In the interests of justice, therefore, we consider it appropriate In the interests of justice, therefore, we consider it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee to remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee to remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall be afforded an opportuni shall be afforded an opportunity to furnish all necessary evidence, ty to furnish all necessary evidence, including bank statements and supporting records, to establish including bank statements and supporting records, to establish including bank statements and supporting records, to establish that the loan was received prior to 01.04.2013. The Assessing that the loan was received prior to 01.04.2013. The Assessing that the loan was received prior to 01.04.2013. The Assessing Officer shall examine the same and adjudicate the issue afresh in Officer shall examine the same and adjudicate the issue afresh in Officer shall examine the same and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. Ground accordance with law. Ground No. 5 is, accordingly, allowed for No. 5 is, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.

by the 15. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: assessee are reproduced as under:

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in2,24,77,726 law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax in2,24,77,726 law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax in2,24,77,726 law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has wrongly estima (Appeal) has wrongly estimated the income of the appellant @ 3% ted the income of the appellant @ 3% for total turnover of Purchase and Sales as reported in profit and for total turnover of Purchase and Sales as reported in profit and for total turnover of Purchase and Sales as reported in profit and loss account, prepared from Audited Book of Accounts amounting to loss account, prepared from Audited Book of Accounts amounting to loss account, prepared from Audited Book of Accounts amounting to Rs.69,49,11,846/ though the alleged turnover of Sales and Rs.69,49,11,846/ though the alleged turnover of Sales and Rs.69,49,11,846/ though the alleged turnover of Sales and Purchase Purchase with with 'One 'One World World Group Gro up Companies' Companies' was was Rs.12,81,11,995/ Rs.12,81,11,995/-, during the captioned year, which is against the , during the captioned year, which is against the natural justice. natural justice. Further Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the Interest Income of Further Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the Interest Income of Further Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the Interest Income of 6,61,315/- added by DCIT as operational income added by DCIT as operational income 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in allowing the appeal partly on assumption bases and not on facts allowing the appeal partly on assumption bases and not on facts allowing the appeal partly on assumption bases and not on facts 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in al) has erred in upholding the action of learned assessing officer of treating all the upholding the action of learned assessing officer of treating all the upholding the action of learned assessing officer of treating all the business activities as accommodation entry without business activities as accommodation entry without business activities as accommodation entry without appreciating the submission / documentary the submission / documentary evidence provided to prove the evidence provided to prove the genuineness of all the Audited purchase and s genuineness of all the Audited purchase and sales submitted by ales submitted by appellant 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in la the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) has erred not learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) has erred not learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) has erred not allowing the assessee's appeal for disapproving the learn Assessing allowing the assessee's appeal for disapproving the learn Assessing allowing the assessee's appeal for disapproving the learn Assessing officer's view of rejecting the Bo officer's view of rejecting the Books of Accounts and Income of oks of Accounts and Income of appellant by invoking the provision of sectior 145 (3) of the income appellant by invoking the provision of sectior 145 (3) of the income appellant by invoking the provision of sectior 145 (3) of the income tax Act, 1961. tax Act, 1961. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal has aga erred The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal has aga erred The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal has aga erred in allowing the respondent made an addition u/s. 68 of Rs. in allowing the respondent made an addition u/s. 68 of Rs. in allowing the respondent made an addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 53,28,330/- in respect of unsecured loan appearing in audited ect of unsecured loan appearing in audited Balance Sheet of the appellant prepared from the books of accounts Balance Sheet of the appellant prepared from the books of accounts Balance Sheet of the appellant prepared from the books of accounts

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 16 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 which were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act The said loan was availed which were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act The said loan was availed which were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act The said loan was availed from Shri. Gurucharan Bhandari [(PAN: ADAPC0247Q) (Address: from Shri. Gurucharan Bhandari [(PAN: ADAPC0247Q) (Address: from Shri. Gurucharan Bhandari [(PAN: ADAPC0247Q) (Address: 260 Building No.2 260 Building No.2 A.P.M market Vashi New Mumbai 400705)] which A.P.M market Vashi New Mumbai 400705)] which were received a credited in Books of Accounts prior were received a credited in Books of Accounts prior 01.04.2013 01.04.2013 8.1 The ground No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are identical to the The ground No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are identical to the The ground No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Rekha Manish Kapadia and therefore, grounds raised in the case of Rekha Manish Kapadia and therefore, grounds raised in the case of Rekha Manish Kapadia and therefore, same are decided muta same are decided mutatis mutandis.

8.2 The ground No. 5 of the appeal relation to addition u/s 68 of The ground No. 5 of the appeal relation to addition u/s 68 of The ground No. 5 of the appeal relation to addition u/s 68 of Rs.53,28,330/- in respect of unsecured loan received from in respect of unsecured loan received from in respect of unsecured loan received from Gurucharan Bhandari which Gurucharan Bhandari which is claimed to have is claimed to have received or credited in the books of accounts of ground prior to 01.03.2013. credited in the books of accounts of ground prior to 01.03. credited in the books of accounts of ground prior to 01.03.

8.3 As identical issue s identical issue in the case Rekha Manish Kapadia for AY in the case Rekha Manish Kapadia for AY 2014-15 has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for for for deciding deciding deciding afresh afresh afresh after after after considering considering considering the the the submission submission submission and and and documentary evidence of the assessee that said loan was received documentary evidence of the assessee that said loan was receiv documentary evidence of the assessee that said loan was receiv prior to 01.04.2013. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal is also prior to 01.04.2013. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal is also prior to 01.04.2013. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes. allowed for statistical purposes.

8.4 The grounds raised in other assessment year The grounds raised in other assessment years from 2015 from 2015-16 to 2019-2020 in the case of Mr. Manish Kapadia 2020 in the case of Mr. Manish Kapadia are are identical to grounds raised in assess raised in assessment year 2014-15 except change of the 15 except change of the amount and therefore, respectfully following our finding in amount and therefore, respectfully following our find amount and therefore, respectfully following our find assessment year 2014 assessment year 2014-15, the grounds are decided mutatis he grounds are decided mutatis mutandis.

Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 17 318 to 322/MUM/2025 & Nos. 264, 318 to 322/MUM/2025 263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025

Order pronounced in the open ounced in the open Court on 26/11/2025. /11/2025.