BOBBY YOGENDRA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5672/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions were made solely on the basis of AIR reporting without sharing the primary information with the assessee. This lack of information impaired the assessee's ability to respond, and it would not be fair to sustain the addition without giving the assessee an opportunity to examine the material.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from an assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144, where additions were made based on Annual Information Return (AIR) entries. The assessee's primary contention is that the underlying material for these entries was never provided, despite repeated requests.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made solely on the basis of AIR entries are sustainable when the primary information was not provided to the assessee for their explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Patel
For Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain, CIT DR
Hearing: 13/11/2025Pronounced: 18/11/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04 August 2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising from the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The addition in question has been made with reference to certain entries reflected in the Annual Information Return system. The principal grievance of the assessee is that the underlying material forming the basis of Bobby Yogendra Sharma those entries was never furnished to him, despite repeated requests. 2. The Assessing Officer noted a series of transactions reported in the AIR database in the name of the assessee and treated the entire aggregate amount as undisclosed income. The details, as recorded in the assessment order, are as under:

1.

Nature of Transaction Amount (Rs.) Agreement entered with 7,11,281 builder or co operative society for property Cash deposits aggregating two 4,50,000 lakh rupees or more with a banking company Contract of ten lakh rupees or 3,52,97,997 more in the commodities exchange Purchase of equity shares in a 4,17,22,538 recognised stock exchange Sale of equity shares settled 4,27,12,282 by actual delivery in a recognised stock exchange Total 12,08,94,098

3.

The assessee, however, has explained that he was unable to respond meaningfully to the notices as the specific AIR particulars were never made available to him. The paper Bobby Yogendra Sharma book placed before us contains several communications addressed to the Department, wherein the assessee had requested copies of the AIR information, including transaction wise details and the identity of the reporting source. Those communications indicate that the assessee was making genuine attempts to obtain the material necessary for preparing a proper reply. It has also been pointed out that the Form 26AS does not reflect any such AIR entries. Nevertheless, in the absence of a response from the Department, both the assessment and the appellate proceedings culminated in ex parte orders.

4.

We have considered the material on record and the circumstances in which the assessment came to be framed. It appears that the additions have been made solely on the basis of the AIR reporting, without the primary information ever having been shared with the assessee. When the foundation of an addition lies in third party data, it is important that the assessee is provided the underlying details so that he may submit a proper and informed explanation. In the present case, the absence of such information has clearly impaired the assessee’s ability to respond. In our view, it would therefore not be fair to sustain the addition without first giving the assessee an opportunity to examine the material and offer his explanation.

5.

In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall provide the assessee with complete particulars of each AIR entry and thereafter call for a detailed Bobby Yogendra Sharma response. The assessee, on his part, shall cooperate in the proceedings and submit all relevant material. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter re examine the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →