PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence. The Revenue failed to rebut the assessee's explanations.
What were the facts?
During a search operation, unexplained cash expenditure, cash-on-hand, and jewellery were found. The Assessing Officer made additions based on seized documents and cash found. The CIT(A) deleted most of these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made on account of unexplained expenditure, cash, and jewellery are sustainable when the assessee provides plausible explanations supported by evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Society v. UOI493 citing394 ITR 220 · 2017 · SC
- Ashok Chaddha v. ITO252 citing337 ITR 399 · 2011 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): These cross-appeals in ITA No. 2318/Mum/2025 filed by the assessee and ITA No. 2896/Mum/2025 filed by the Revenue arise from a common order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–54, Mumbai, bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/2024-25/1073753093(1), read with the Corrigendum of even date issued under No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073753093(1) (hereinafter collectively referred to as ―the impugned order‖). Since both appeals emanate from the same factual matrix and involve overlapping issues, the
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026