SONILIKA NIMESH KARWANYUN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26 (2) (1), 26 (2) (1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7278/MUM/2026 (AY: 2015-16) (PhysicalHearing) Sonilika Nimesh Karwanyun ITO, Ward – 26(2)(1), Mumbai C-701 Lodha Bellissimo N M Joshi vs Aayakar Bhavan, Kautilya Bhavan, Marg, Mahalaxmi, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400011. [PAN: AYMPK3447K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Ms. Monu Verma, AR Revenue by Ms. Kanupriya Damor Sr. DR Date of Institution 11.06.2026 Date of hearing 27.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 10.09.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFACdated 17.04.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,08,298/- inspite of not making addition on the main ground on which basis the case was reopened. In the absence of addition of the item which is subject matter of reopening, no further additions can be made in light of various jurisdictional judgements, which is not considered by the CIT(A). he ought to have dismissed this addition on legal grounds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.3,08,298/- under section 68 of the Act. He ought to have considered the detailed submission made before him establishing the nexus between the appellant’s own two accounts which falls outside the purview of section 68 of the Act.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and the record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the addition in the assessment order was made on account

ITA No.7278/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) Sonilika Nimesh Karwanyun of credits appearing in her bank account during the relevant financial year. At the time of assessment, the assessee could not furnish the requisite details as she was out of the country. However, in the second round of appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished evidence and explained that the credit in her bank account represented the closure proceeds from her bank account with Axis Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai, which were credited to her new bank account. The aggregate credit in the earlier bank account was Rs. 3,08,298/-. The assessee also furnished the bank statement of her husband, from where the amounts were being transferred to her account. Her husband was an employee with a bank. The amount transferred by her husband was from his taxable income, which was transferred to her old account, which was subsequently closed, and the amount was transferred to her new account. Thus, the assessee has explained the source of credit. The observation of the learned CIT(A) that no details were furnished before him or AO is not correct. Rather, complete details were furnished. The acknowledgement from the ITBA portal showing the submission is also placed on record. The details of the bank statements of the old bank account as well as the new bank account were also furnished, copies of which is also filed before this bench. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue, submits that, as per the findings of the lower authorities, the requisite details were not furnished. Therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for passing an order.

ITA No.7278/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) Sonilika Nimesh Karwanyun 4. In short rejoinder submission, the learned AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has already faced two rounds of first appeal and assessment. Therefore, the bench may take decision on the basis of material placed on record. The evidence filed before the bench was available before CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that a very short dispute is before us. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee fairly accepted that at the time of assessment, the assessee could not file required bank details to substantiate the credit. However, before ld CIT(A) the assessee furnished evidence in the form of bank statement and explained that the credit in her bank account represented the closure proceeds from her bank account with Axis Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai, which were credited to her new bank account. The aggregate credit in the earlier bank account was Rs. 3,08,298/-. 6. We find that while confirming the addition, the ld CIT(A) that as per the appellant the sum of Rs. 3,08,298/- represent transfer of closing balance upon closure of Axis Bank A/c and does not constitute any fresh flow of funds. The same represents the transfer from the disclosed bank a/c of her husband and that the appellant has failed to furnish any confirmation along with the details of the sources of the funds before the AO as well as before him. 7. On perusal of details available before us, we find that the assessee also furnished the bank statement of her husband, from where the amounts were being transferred to her account. On further perusal of bank statement with Axis Bank No. 91101 xxxxxxx2, we find that this bank

ITA No.7278/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) Sonilika Nimesh Karwanyun account was closed and final settlement amount of Rs. 3,08,298.00/- was paid to assessee by way of Demand Draft on 23.08.2014. All credit entry in this bank account is by way of transfer from the bank account of her husband. The transfer entries are clearly matching with the bank statement of her husband, copy of which is also available on record. We find that all these evidence with explanation was provided to the ld CIT(A) vide acknowledgement dated 14.04.2016. The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate such evidence. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual discussions, we do not find justification for conforming the addition under section 68 of Rs3,08,298/-. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open court on 10/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated:10/09/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai