DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Assessment Year: 2018-19

DCIT-42(1)(1),
Room No. 732, 7th floor,
Kautilya Bhavan, BKC East,
Mumbai-400051. Vs.
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik,
C-4304 Oberoi Exquisite Oberoi
Garden City, Off. Western
Express Highway, Goregaon East,
Mumbai-400063. PAN NO. ADEPN 6898 E
Appellant
Respondent
Assessment Year: 2018-19

Uday Ghanshyam Naik,
Office No. 6, 1st floor, Rajbahadur
Mansion, Ambalal Doshi Marg,
Hemam Street, Fort,
Mumbai-400032. Vs.
ITO Circle 42(1)(1),
AO Type-C, AO No. 91, Range-
431, Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya
Bhavan,
Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ADEPN 6898 E

Appellant
Respondent

CO. No. 73/MUM/2025
(Arising out of ITA No. 989/MUM/2025)
Assessment Year: 2018-19

Uday Ghanshyam Naik,
Office No. 6, 1st floor, Rajbahadur
Mansion, Ambalal Doshi Marg,
Hemam Street, Fort,
Mumbai-400032. Vs.
DCIT-42(1)(1),
Room No. 732, 7th floor, Kautilya
Bhavan, BKC East,
Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ADEPN 6898 E

Appellant
Respondent

Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing
Date of pronouncem
PER BENCH

The cross appea objection of the a 24.12.2024 passed
(Appeals) – National F
CIT(A)’] for assessme cross-objection perta were heard together order for the sake of c
2. Firstly, we take
Revenue for adjudica
Revenue in their appe
Assessee’s App
(1) ADDITION
CREDIT U/S.
(1.1) On the National Face confirming t unexplained c
ITA No. 989, 1098

:
Mr. Haresh P Shah
:
Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr g
:
18/09/2025
ment
:
29/10/2025

ORDER als by the assessee and the Reve assessee are directed agains by the Ld. Commissioner
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [i ent year 2018-19. As the cro ain to same impugned order, and disposed off by way of th convenience.
e up the cross appeals of th ation. The grounds raised by th eals reproduced as under:
peals:
N OF RS. 4,18,82,630/- AS UNEXPLA
68 - facts and circumstances and in law, eless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] perver the alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82
cash credit under the provisions of secti
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
2
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
r. DR enue and cross- st order dated of Income-tax in short ‘the Ld.
ss appeals and therefore, same his consolidated e assessee and he assessee and AINED CASH the learned rsely erred in 2,630/- as ion 68 of the Act disregard
Remand Repo were test chec
(1.2) On the fa failed to appr the initial onu genuineness ought to have (1.3) Withou circumstances conclusion in NFAC, inter-a cash credit creditworthine alleging that lending.
(1.4) Without ought to have that the learn addition as proceedings t dated 08/03/
to the respect
(1.5) Without was dischar explanation r appellate ord
Appellant wa submit the re
Notice dated and explain apparently, in was necessa explanations
(1.6) On the f prays that the Act may be considered th be correct in t
(2) ADDITION
RECEIPT AS U
ITA No. 989, 1098

ding the categorical finding by the learne ort that the details of the alleged unexp cked and found to be correct.
acts and circumstances and in law, the le reciate that the Appellant had completely us and satisfied the learned ITO in subst of the alleged unexplained cash credits a e been deleted.
ut prejudice to the above, on the s, completely disregarding the categorica n Remand Report dated 08/01/2024, alia, erred in holding that the alleged ts were not satisfactorily expla ess and genuineness of the transact the Appellant failed to give details of t prejudice to the main contention, the le e appreciated before confirming the alleg ned ITO had failed in his duties before such because during the impugned the Appellant hadcategorically requested
/2021 to the learned ITO to issue notice tive lenders.
prejudice to the main contention that the rged by the Appellant, with refere recorded at para f' in page no. 3 of th der, the learned NFAC failed to appreci as not given fair/sufficient & proper op quisite details and explanation i.r.t. the 24/09/2021 as it was issued calling up the details by the date 27/09/2021
nsufficient time and hence, in these circu ary to submit additional details, docu during the appellate proceedings.
facts and circumstances and in law, th e alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82,630/- u/
e deleted mainly because the learne he details, documents and explanation a the Remand Proceedings.
N OF RS. 20,68,736/- BEING GROSS AG
UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68-
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
3
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
ed ITO in the plained loans earned NFAC y discharged tantiating the and hence, it facts and l finding and the learned unexplained ained their tions merely the source of earned NFAC ged addition making any assessment d, vide letter e u/s. 133(6) e initial onus ence to the he impugned iate that the pportunity to Show- cause pon to submit which was, umstances it uments and he Appellant
/s. 68 of the ed ITO has and found to GRICULTURE

(2.1) On the f confirming th unexplained c
Appellant had documents in during the yea
(2.2) On the f claim of the A Rs. 20,68,73
agricultural re
(3) ADDITION
AGRICULTUR
U/S. 69C –
(3.1) On the f confirming the which were in disregarding
Remand proce
(3.2) On the fa erred in confi categorical re
Proceedings t and the same
(3.3) On the f alleged additi
(4) ADDITION
8,42,94,769/
(4.1) On the fa erred in confi by virtue of th the matured
Appellant's d premium was (4.2) On the f prays that th by virtue of uncalled and Revenue’s Grou
ITA No. 989, 1098

facts and circumstances, the learned NF he alleged amount of gross agricultural credit u/s. 68 of the Act without apprecia d dully explained with reference to the n support and substantiated the agricult ar under consideration.
facts and circumstances the Appellant pr
Appellant may be accepted and the allege
36/- may be deleted and accepted a eceipts.
N OF RS. 12,09,809/- BEING EXPEN
RAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CA facts and circumstances, the learned NF e disallowance of the expenditure of Rs.
ncurred & claimed in performing agricultu the categorical finding by the learned eedings.
facts and circumstances, the learned NFA irming the alleged addition conveniently ecording & finding of the learned ITO that the Appellant had submitted the rele e were test checked and found to be corre facts and circumstances, the Appellant pr ion/disallowance may be deleted/allowe
N OF RS.20,000/- OUT OF ORIGINAL A 7 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.
acts and circumstances and in law, the le irming the alleged of Rs. 20,000/- as dee he section 60 of the Act holding it as for policy amount of Rs.80,000/- pertai daughter Pooja Naik merely because th s paid by the Appellant, facts and circumstances and in law, th e alleged addition of Rs.20,000/- as dee section 60 of the Act may be deleted unjustified.
und
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
4
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
FAC erred in l receipts as ating that the details and tural receipts rays that the ed addition of as exempted
NDITURE ON ASH CREDIT
FAC erred in 12,09,809/- ural activities d ITO in the AC perversely ignoring the in Remand evant details ect.
rays that the ed & oblige.
ADDITION OF . 69C –
earned NFAC emed income rming part of ining to the e amount of he Appellant emed income d as it was 1. On the fact
CIT (A)) is err u/s 69C of th brought on re
2. On the fact
CIT (A) is err merely relying that sources examined dur
3. On the fact
CIT (A) is erre without exam submitted the 4. The appel ground which 3. Briefly stated, th are that the assessee consideration on ₹2,65,11,770/–. The notices under the Inc duly issued and partl
3.1 The assessee, b engaged in construct
G.N. Construction, development. Durin
Officer
(“AO”) no ₹4,18,82,630/– rece furnished confirmati substantiating the id
ITA No. 989, 1098

ts and circumstances of the case and in red in deleting the addition of Rs.8,42,74
he IT Act without appreciating that no evi cord suggesting repayment of loan.
ts and circumstances of the case and in red in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,42, g on the report of the AO without exami of the re-payment of loan/ advances ring remund proceeding.
ts and circumstances of the case and in ed in accepting the remand report on this mining the issue as to whether the as e evidences suggesting repayment of loan lant craves leave to amend or alter or h may be necessary.
he material facts, as borne out f e filed its return of income for 22.01.2019
declaring a tot return was selected for scrutin come-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ly complied with.
being a partner in several pa tion activity, is also the sole pr which is likewise engaged ng the scrutiny proceedings, oticed unsecured loans a eived during the year. The a ions of accounts without any c dentity, creditworthiness, and Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
5
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
law, the Ld.
,769/- made idences were law, the Ld.
,74,769/- by ning the fact were never law, the Ld.
issue in Toto ssessee ever n.
r add a new from the record, the year under tal income of ny and statutory r “the Act”) were artnership firms roprietor of M/s in real estate the Assessing aggregating to assessee merely cogent evidence genuineness of the creditors. The unexplained cash cr
Act.
3.2 The AO further squared-off loans d
₹20,68,736/– on acc that the assessee ha earned agricultural
₹12,09,809/– were under Section 69C.
was assessed at ₹15
vide order dated 29.0
4. Before the Ld. C evidences such as PA confirmations of the some concern that no additional evidence u was filed.
4.1 Nevertheless, th transmitted the said however, conducted test-check basis and this limited verificat
ITA No. 989, 1098

AO therefore treated the edits within the meaning of Se made addition of ₹8,42,94,776
during the year, and anoth count of alleged agricultural rec ad failed to substantiate the c l income.
The agricultural also disallowed as unexplain
Accordingly, the total income
5,59,67,710/– under Section 14
09.2021. IT(A), the assessee tendered ce
AN, income-tax returns, bank s e alleged creditors. However, w o formal application seeking ad under Rule 46A of the Income-t he Ld. CIT(A), in the exercise of documents to the AO for verifi only a perfunctory and partia submitted a brief remand repor tion, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld t
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
6
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
said loans as ection 68 of the 6/– representing her addition of ceipts, observing claim of having expenses of ned expenditure of the assessee
43(3) of the Act ertain additional statements, and we observe with dmission of such tax Rules, 1962
f her discretion, ication. The AO, al inquiry on a rt. Relying upon the addition of ₹4,18,82,630/– unde bereft of financial cap commercial rationale
Reliance was placed
Court in Principal CI
Appeal No. 2463 of court reiterated that establish the identity genuineness of the t reproduced as under “However, on observed tha providers is m provided by t afford to lend it is the busin perusal of co appellant, it loans. Therefo any person comparison to interest. Thu creditworthine motive of the loans is not p
Even then the explaining th providers neit paid on these named unsec proceedings, specifically as creditors, also Govt. account called for. The the basis of ITA No. 989, 1098

er Section 68, observing that th pacity, that the transactions we e, and that no interest had bee d upon the judgment of the H
IT (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Ste f 2019, dated 05.03.2019], wh t the onus lies squarely upon y and creditworthiness of the c ransaction. The relevant findin
:
n perusal of the evidences detailed abo at the income in ROI showed by the much less in comparison to the amount them. It raises a concern as to how a pe d the significant huge amount of his incom ness of the person to lend the money. How onfirmation of these accounts, submitted is observed that no interest was paid o fore, it further raises a genuine concern a would provide loan of significant am o his/her income that too without charg us, the appellant has failed to jus ess and financial capacity of the creditor e loan providers. Even the genuineness roved satisfactorily.
e appellant has failed to submit any evid he financial capacity of the creditor ther did he provide any details regarding e loans nor could justify the nature of the cured loans. It is noted that during the vide letter dated 08.12.2023, the appell sked to give details of source of income o the details of TDS deducted and depo t on the interest payments to these credit e appellant was asked to furnish these d its TDS return and the bank account s
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
7
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
he lenders were re devoid of any en paid thereon.
on’ble Supreme el (P.) Ltd. [Civil herein the apex the assessee to creditor and the g of ld CIT(A) is ove, it is ese Loan t of loan rson can me unless wever, on d by the on these as to why mount in ging any stify the r and the of these dence for rs/ loan g interest e amount e appeal lant was of these osited in tors were details on tatement reflecting the appellant has during the app been dischar primary onu creditworthine the cash cred has failed to genuineness creditors.
5.4 Further ob i. D.K. Enterp loan. Now the Sale Agreeme
Tax Auditor. G ii Harlalka Tr the amount m books. Furthe not sufficient iii. Hum Deve interest has b genuineness n iv. J. Tex: No v. Kishor Vish
The bank acc the account given.
The creditworthine vi. Kishor Vis
The bank acc the account ap given loan. N nominal inco proved.
vii. Mayur G individual. Th very low and income given creditworthine
ITA No. 989, 1098

e payment of interest to these parti s failed to provide any of these details c ppeal proceedings. Thus, the onus of proof rged by the appellant. Under section us of the assessee to prove the ess and the genuineness of the transact ditors claimed by him. In this case, the a o prove satisfactorily the creditworthin of the transactions in respect of these bservations related to parties are as unde prises: The Audit Report classified it as un e amount received as loan has been cla ent receipt. No clarification is on record f
Genuineness not proved.
raders Pvt. Ltd. The appellant himself is d mentioned in the ledger account of the par er, the ITR reflects income of Rs. 1,06,93
to explain the creditworthiness.
elopers Pvt. Ltd.: The ITR reflects Nil inc been paid to the creditor. Creditworthin not proved.
interest payments to the individual. No IT hnu Bhoir: No interest payment to this in count balances show that they are very appears to be a conduit. No source of ITR gives a very nominal incom ess and genuineness not proved.
hnu Bhoir HUF: No interest payment to t count balances show that they are very appears to be a conduit. The Karta has se
No source of income given. The ITR give me. The creditworthiness and genuinen
Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest paymen he bank account balances show that the account appears to be a conduit. No s n. The ITR gives a very nominal inco ess and genuineness not proved.DIME
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
8
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
ies. The called for f has not 68, it is identity, tion with appellant ness and parties/
er:
nsecured aimed as from the disputing rty in his
30/- only come. No ness and TR filed.
dividual.
low and f income me.
The this HUF.
low and eparately s a very ness not t to this they are source of me. The viii. Meena individual. Th very low and income given creditworthine ix. Panbai T individual. Th very low and income given creditworthine x. Pooja Uday is the daught show that the conduit. No creditworthine xi. Pravin Ga individual. Th very low and income given creditworthine xii. Priya R individual. Th very low and income given creditworthine xiii. Rashmi D appears to be gives a very n
The creditwor xiv. Sameer M bank account account appe
The ITR gives amount. The c xv. Sequera F source of inco and genuinen xvi. Sunny S individual. Th very low and ITA No. 989, 1098

Manish Shah: No interest payment he bank account balances show that the account appears to be a conduit. No s n. The ITR gives a very nominal inco ess and genuineness not proved.
Tokershi Dedha: No interest payment he bank account balances show that the account appears to be a conduit. No s n. The ITR gives a very nominal inco ess and genuineness not proved.
y Naik: No interest payment to this individ ter of the assessee. The bank account b ey are very low and the account appears source of income given. No ITR fil ess and genuineness not proved.
angadhar Mhatre: No interest payment he bank account balances show that t the account appears to be a conduit. No s n. The ITR gives a very nominal inco ess and genuineness not proved.
Ratanshi Vora: No interest payment he bank account balances show that t the account appears to be a conduit. No s n. The ITR gives a very nominal inco ess and genuineness not proved.
Dinesh Patil: No bank account given. the e a conduit. No source of income given.
nominal income as compared to the loan rthiness and genuineness not proved.
Malik: No interest payment to this individ t balances show that they are very low ears to be a conduit. No source of incom s a very nominal income as compared to creditworthiness and genuineness not pro
Fabrics: No interest payment to this indivi ome given. No ITR furnished. The creditwo ness not proved.
Sanjay Dhangar: No interest payment he bank account balances show that the account appears to be a conduit. No s
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
9
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
to this they are source of me. The to this they are source of me. The dual who balances s to be a led. The t to this they are source of me. The to this they are source of me. The e account
The ITR amount.
dual. The and the me given.
the loan oved.
idual. No orthiness t to this they are source of income given compared to genuineness n xvii. Yasshod
The amount o account balan appears to be gives a very n amount. The c xviii. Yogita individual. No proved.
xix. Rajendra
No source of i xx. Arif Lalan amount of cr account balan appears to be gives a very n amount. The c xxi. Bhakti U amount of cr account balan appears to be gives Nil incom creditworthine xxii. Chhabra
No ITR furnis furnished by not matching
Report. The a balance. The xxiii. Dinesh H source of inco as compared and genuinen xxiv. Asanjo A certificate. No and genuinen
ITA No. 989, 1098

n. The ITR gives a very nominal inc the loan amount. The creditworthine not not proved.
dip Naik: No interest payment to this in of credit balance is more than one crore. T nces show that they are very low and the e a conduit. No source of income given.
nominal income as compared to the loan creditworthiness and genuineness not pro
Niloba Naik: No interest payment
No source of income given. The genuinen a Sharma: No interest payment to this in income given. The genuineness not proved ni: No interest payment to this individ redit balance is more than 55 Lacs. T nces show that they are very low and the e a conduit. No source of income given.
nominal income as compared to the loan creditworthiness and genuineness not pro
Naik: No interest payment to this individ redit balance is more than 94 Lacs. T nces show that they are very low and the e a conduit. No source of income given.
me as compared to the loan balance amo ess and genuineness not proved.
a Associates: No interest payment to this shed. No source of income given. The exp the appellant in his reply dated 12.12
g with its ledger accounts and Tax A amount of loan is not reflecting as an creditworthiness and genuineness not pr
H. Patil: No interest payment to this cre ome given. The ITR gives a very nomina to the loan balance amount. The creditwo ness not proved.
Amber: The assessee has only submitte o other details submitted. The creditwo ness not proved.
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
10
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
come as ess and dividual.
The bank e account
The ITR n balance oved.
to this ness not dividual.
d.
dual. The The bank e account
The ITR n balance oved.
dual. The The bank e account
The ITR ount. The creditor.
planation
2.2023 is Auditor's opening roved.
ditor. No al income orthiness ed death orthiness xxv. Adilon S furnished. Th and not ackn and genuinen xxvi. Anjali S bank stateme creditworthine xxv. Gautam
The letter iss acknowledged genuineness n xxvi. Osaka S furnished. Th and not ackn and genuinen xxvii. Rahul account furni serving and creditworthine xxviii.
Rosh confirmation genuineness n
Considering t that the asses
/
justify w creditworthine respect of al
Assessing Off
4,18,82,630/
5.5 In the c
(Central)-1 v.N
2463 OF 201
held that:

"As pe establi transa section 
The as of the A ITA No. 989, 1098

Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. No confirmation of he letter issued by the assessee is self nowledged by the creditor. The creditwo ness not proved.
. Malik: No confirmation of account furnis ent provided. No interest payment reflec ess and genuineness not proved.
Silk Mills: No confirmation of account fu sued by the assessee is self serving d by the creditor. The creditworthine not proved.
Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.: No confirmation of he letter issued by the assessee is self nowledged by the creditor. The creditwo ness not proved.
Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd.: No confirm ished. The letter issued by the assesse d not acknowledged by the credit ess and genuineness not proved.
han
Maloo:
No documents furnish of account. The identity creditworthin not proved.
the above facts, I am of the considered ssee appellant has failed to satisfactorily with documentary evidence, the ess and genuineness of the transac l the creditors discussed above. Theref fficer was justified in making the additio
- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
case of Principal Commissioner of Inc
NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. in CIVIL APPE
9 on MARCH 5, 2019 the Hon'ble Souprem er settled law, the onus is on the ass ish by cogent evidence the genuinenes ction, and creditworthiness of the investo n 68. ssessee is expected to establish to the sat
Assessing Officer:
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
11
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
f account f serving orthiness shed. No cted. The urnished.
and not ess and f account f serving orthiness mation of ee is self tor.
The hed.
No ness and d opinion y explain identity, ctions in fore, the on of Rs.
come-tax
PEAL NO.
me Court essee to ss of the ors under tisfaction


Proof of 
Capaci

Genuin
With respect t the assessee the investme borrowings, assessee's k investors doe capacity or cr
In the case of held that sai accordingly, assesse. High to produce an produce its o failed to esta alleged loan t was justified
SLP TO APPEA
DISMISSED T
High court in In view of th regarding ad
4.2 The assessee i addition.
4.3 In regard to th partial relief, sustain in the case of Pooja U said deletion where sustaining the disal relevant finding of th
“5.6 Addition the assessme
ITA No. 989, 1098

of identity of the creditors; ity of creditors to advance money; and neness of transaction"
to the issue of genuineness of transaction to prove by cogent and credible eviden ents made in share capital are since the facts are exclusively wit knowledge. Merely, proving the identity es not discharge the onus of the assesse redit-worthiness has not been established f C.V Ravi v. Income-tax Officer Assessin id loan received by assessee was bog made additions under section 68 to in h Court also held that since assessee ha ny confirmation from said alleged credito owner in person for cross-examination a ablish identity of creditor and genuine transaction, impugned additions under se and The Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF IN EAL (C) NO (S). 11083 OF 2021 ON JULY 2
THE SAID SLP AGAINST THE ORDER the ABOVE CASE.
e above, the grounds of appeal of the a ddition of Rs.41,18,82630/- are dismisse s in appeal against sustainin he squared-off loans, the Ld.
ing the addition only to the exte
Uday Naik. The Revenue is in ap eas the assessee is in app llowance in respect of Pooja U e Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as un u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,769/-: I have go ent order, the submissions of the app
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
12
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
n, it is for nce, that genuine thin the y of the ee, if the d."
ng Officer gus and, ncome of ad failed r ARC or and also eness of ection 68
NDIA * in 26, 2021
OF THE appellant ed.”
ng of the above
CIT(A) granted ent of ₹20,000/–
ppeal against the eal as against
Udai Naik. The nder:
one through pellant and remand repor considering th no. 2 pertaini appellant is a In case of P appellant has himself towar also the mat himself. Such appellant by amount cann cannot be allo
8,42,94,769/
is disallo
4.4 As to the alleged the disallowance, ho evidence of ownershi claim was wholly u disallowance observin
“6.2 During submit the income. The expenditure c agricultural b agricultural in As described income in his of evidences are associate not even both his mind at a the appellant the contradic agricultural in The appellant expenses to ju records in his details of cro
ITA No. 989, 1098

rt in this case. After scrutinizing the evid he Remand Report, I have found the claim ing to addition u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,7
allowable in the case except in the Pooja
Pooja Udai Naik, as per the remand s stated that the premium paid by the rds the policy of his daughter Pooja Uda turity amount had been received by the h maturity amount shall be the deemed in the virtue of section 60. Therefore, th not be treated as loan and eventually th owed as repayment. In the view of the ab
- Rs. 8,42,74,769/- is allowed remaining owed.”
d agricultural income, the Ld. C olding that the assessee had pr ip nor proof of cultivation or sal unsubstantiated. The Ld. CIT ng as under :
the various notices the appellant was evidence/documents regarding this e appellant submitted tables for in calculation and some evidence expend but did not any evidence establishing ncome.
above that the appellant had shown return the addition was made due to no wherein in the remand report the recom ed with the cash credit. The Assessing hered to be correct on the facts and has all. Further, it is mentioned in the remand t has also stated them as loan taken. T ctions in the nature of money which is n ROI and loan taken in remand report.
t has merely submitted two purchase bill ustify the agricultural income. No details s ownership, the status of irrigation in th op production certified by the Govt. Auth
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
13
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
dences and m in ground
769/- of the Udai Naik.
report the e appellant ai Naik and e appellant ncome of the he maturity he payment bove, out of g 20,000/-
CIT(A) confirmed roduced neither le, and thus the T(A) upheld the s asked to agricultural ncome and diture from g receipt of agricultural on-providing mmendation
Officer has not applied d report that This reflects shown as ls related to of the land he land, the horities has not been subm appellant sub and therefor unorganized the persons m been submitt claimed exem onus of the a earned and th been discharg does not appl year is new view of the ab the Assessing
4.5 Further, regard
Rs.12,09,809/- the submitted by the ass
“6.3 The asse to 12,09,809/
"4.5 Further t amounting to assessee un expenditure. P
Act are initiat
During the va evidence/doc appellant su calculation an out of which o had been ver dated 08.01.2
stated that th agricultural w unable to pro expense can not verifiable.
In the view appeal No. 3
made by the A ITA No. 989, 1098

mitted. Therefore, the claim is not enterta bmits that he has made sales to the stre re, no documentary proof is availab market. No details of transportation, lab making payments, mode of payment re ted. The sale proceeds of Rs. 20,68
mpt and the explanation is not acceptab assessee to prove that the income has ac hat it falls into exempt category. This on ged. It is further noted that principle of r ly to the Income Tax proceedings. Every a and facts are to be ascertained for ea bove facts, the addition of Rs. 20,68,736/
g Officer is confirmed.”
ding the agriculture expenses
Ld. CIT(A) upheld in view essee observing as under:
essee has claimed agricultural expenses
/-. As per assessment order:
the agricultural expenses incurred by th
Rs. 12,09,809/- is added to the total inc nder section 69C of the Act as u
Penalty proceedings under section 271AA ted separately."
arious notices the appellant was asked to cuments regarding these agricultural exp ubmitted tables for income and e nd some evidence of expenditure from only the bill of Rs. 98,570/- and bill of Rs rified by the Assessing officer in its rem
2024. In its remand report the Assessing hese two bills are pertaining to the expens work. However, in this case the app ovide any proof of agricultural income th not be allowed. Also, the bills are self s of the above fact and discussion, the is dismissed and the addition of Rs. 1
Assessing Officer is confirmed.”
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
14
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
ainable. The eet vendors ble in the bour etc. or eceived has 8,736/- are le. It is the ctually been nus has not res judicata assessment ch year. In 6/- made by s amounting to of no evidence amounting he assessee come of the unexplained
AC(1) of the o submit the penses. The expenditure agricultural s. 46, 610/- mand report g officer has ses born on pellant was erefore, the serving and ground of 12,09,809/-

dered the rival submissions of material on record. It is manifes rtained additional evidence in of Rule 46A of the Income-tax R power to admit additional evi and only upon satisfaction of the Assessing Officer must be unity to meet the evidence so add ained to observe that the AO, the evidences only on a cursor racts of the record unverified. H he transactions and the natur rtial inquiry cannot be regard th the letter or the spirit of the l d, as laid down by the Hon’ble poration (P.) Ltd. [(1986) 159 IT on & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), tha
68 is an initial and substantive t is incumbent upon the assess cing unimpeachable evidence e tor, the financial capacity to ad ess of the transaction. Mere pies of returns does not suffi atisfied by independent corrobor
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
15
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
the parties and stly evident that n breach of the Rules, 1962. It is dence must be f the prescribed e afforded a full duced.
in his remand ry and selective
Having regard to re of the sums ed as adequate law.
Supreme Court
TR 78 (SC)] and at the burden of e obligation cast see to discharge establishing the dvance the loan, e furnishing of fice; the test of ration.

case, the assessee’s evidences while the Ld. CIT(A) has proc delete the additions on a foun e and procedurally infirm. We at the ends of substantial justic is restored to the file of the comprehensive verification e impugned findings of the Ld er Sections 68 and 69C are set xamine the matter afresh, afte assessee to adduce all releva ntions.
claim of agricultural income and d to produce primary evid details of cultivation, or sale pr d, therefore we restore the is and expenses also to the file shall, however, be open to t im by producing credible evide e the same in accordance with rified.
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
16
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
fall short of the ceeded to partly ndation that is e are therefore ce would best be AO for de novo of each loan d. CIT(A) on the t aside, and the er affording due ant material in d expenses , the dence such as roceeds or proof sues related to e of ld AO for the assessee to ence before the law and on the 7. Accordingly, all well as Revenue are a 8. As far as cro concerned, same are (1) On the fac
Appellant rais whether the D
No. 989/Mum against own f
(2) Without pr
& in law, whe own findings, page no. 52 h out of the tota
After scrutini
Report, I have u/s. 69C of R
(3) On the fa
Revenue coul particularly, discharged h alleged trans adverse findin
(4) On the fa prayed that infructuous &
8.1 In cross-objecti issue that once the genuine in his reman file appeal.
8.2 We have heard r our opinion, the as ITA No. 989, 1098

the grounds of the appeal of allowed for statistical purposes.
oss-objections raised by the reproduced as under:
cts and circumstances and in law, the R ses an issue before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mu
DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai who is Appellant m/2025 has locus-standi to file any appe finding in the REMAND REPORT.
rejudice to the above, on the facts and circ ether Revenue was justified in appealing particularly, when the learned CIT(A) at has deleted the alleged addition of Rs. 8,4
al of Rs.8,42,94,769/- after the categoric izing the evidences and considering th e found the claim in ground 2 pertaining
Rs.8,42,94,769/- of the appellant is allowa cts and circumstances and law, thus, w ld file any appeal before the Hon'ble ITA when the Respondent-Appellant had his onus to substantiate the genuinen sactions that too, particularly, when the ng in the remand proceeding and CIT(A), acts and circumstances and in law, how the Revenue's appeal may be dis
& oblige.
on ground NO. 1, the assessee
Assessing Officer has accepte nd report he does not have any rival submissions of the parties sessee has neither followed th
Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
17
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
the assessee as e assessee are Respondent- umbai as to t in the ITA eal as such cumstances g against its para 5.6 at 42,74,769/- cal finding "
he Remand to addition able....".
whether the AT as such, completely ness of the ere was no as well.
wever, it is missed as e has raised the ed the loans as y locus standi to on the issue. In he due process under Rule 46A of examined all the evid wi om of the ld assessee, contendin transactions in rem appeal, are devoid o exploratory and did finding. The statutor cannot be abridged report. In view of our for de novo examinat become purely acade
9. In the result, th are allowed for statis assessee are dismisse
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 29/10/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
ITA No. 989, 1098

f the Rules nor the Assessi dences properly and left the ma
CIT(A). The cross-objections ng that the AO having ac mand was thereby precluded of merit. The remand proceedin not culminate in any bindin ry right of appeal conferred up on the strength of an interim r decision remitting the entire m tion, the cross-objections of the mic and are accordingly dismiss he cross-appeals of the assesse stical purposes whereas cross-o ed.
ced in the open Court on 29/
-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA

Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
18
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
ng Officer has atter only to the raised by the ccepted certain from filing an ngs were merely g or conclusive on the Revenue m administrative matter to the AO e assessee have sed.
ee and Revenue objections of the 10/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA No. 989, 1098

ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik
19
8 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai