NEHA SUDESH SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4722/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Neha Sudesh Shinde Income Tax Officer, 927/31, Gangamai, New Prabhadevi, Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai Mumbai-400025, Vs. Maharashtra अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: BCNPS0167A

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Anil Sathe, CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 24.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 03.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087486160(1) dated 17.03.2026 passed against the assessment order by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 07.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21 .

1) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals have erred in upholding the order of Assessing officer and confirming the additions aggregating Rs 1,55,05,596 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in facts and in law in passing the impugned appellate order, refusing to admit the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in causing gross miscarriage of justice for the following reasons: The evidence before the assessing officer was totally ignored. The comprehensive submissions made by the appellant before the Honourable CIT, Appeal on 11.03.2026 were not considered. The order reveals total non- application of mind as both the facts and the legal provisions are wrongly quoted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in facts and in law in passing the impugned appellate order, without taking into consideration the documents already on record before the CIT, Appeal. 3) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in not appreciating that one out of three bank statements were already submitted during the assessment proceedings and were not in fact additional evidence. 4) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in doubly taxing certain incomes which were already offered to tax in the Return of income filed under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in disregarding the copy of Income Tax Return of the appellant’s mother-in-law which clearly shows that income earned by her has been offered to tax and the gift of Rs 1,60,000 to the appellant was not out of unexplained source of income. 6) The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in facts and in law in confirming the additions of dividend aggregating to Rs 23,312 as taxable under section 56 of the Act. The Ld CIT, Appeals did not appreciate that amendment WHERE Dividends, without any threshold was chargeable to tax in the hands of shareholder was brought by Finance Act 2020 w.e.f. 01 April 2020 and not retrospectively. 7) The Ld CIT, Appeals erred in confirming the additions of Rs 2,15,000 which is fund transfer from one bank account to another. 8) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in disregarding the fact the appellant and her husband were joint account holders in the account in Bank of Maharashtra a/c no. 20014081747 and income if any in such bank account was offered to tax in her husband’s hands. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals have erred in disregarding the bank statement of the joint account which distinctly demonstrates that the primary account holder is the appellant’s husband.

9) The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals erred in not seeking confirmation OR verification of the appellants contention that the receipts in one of the bank accounts WHERE the appellant is secondary holder has already been offered to tax in the hands of appellants husband.

(i) Rs.1,94,470/- in Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No. 9512137921;

(ii) Rs.6,54,870/- (recorded in the assessment order as Rs.6,54,879/- apparently on account of a typographical error) in Bank of Maharashtra A/c No. 20014076384; and (iii) Rs.1,46,56,256/- in Bank of Maharashtra A/c No. 20014081747, being details furnished by the respective banks pursuant to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act. 3.1. Since assessee did not respond to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.02.2025 within the time allowed, ld.AO treated the aforesaid sums, aggregating to Rs.1,55,05,596/-, as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE.

4.1. Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the additional evidence, holding that assessee had failed to demonstrate “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Rule 46A(1) of the Rules for non-production of the said material before ld.AO and in the absence of any evidence admitted on record, proceeded to confirm the additions aggregating to Rs.1,55,05,596/- as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.1. As regards the three impugned bank accounts, ld. Counsel took us through the credit-wise break-up furnished before ld. CIT(A), which is summarized below:

i. Kotak Mahindra Bank, A/c No. 9512137921 (Rs.1,94,470/-): comprising cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- out of opening cash balance; Rs.1,60,000/- received by way of gift from assessee's mother-in-law through banking channel, exempt under section 56(2)(x) supported by the mother-in-law's return of income; and interest of Rs.9,470/- duly offered to tax.

ii. Bank of Maharashtra, A/c No. 20014076384 (Rs.6,54,870/-): comprising dividend of Rs.23,312/- disclosed and offered to tax; income tax refund of Rs.3,530/-; interest of Rs.6,082/- offered to tax; contract receipts of Rs.3,60,000/- from Quotient Communications Pvt. Ltd., reflected in the Profit & Loss Account; Rs.47,000/- received from the broker, Sharekhan; and Rs.2,15,000/- being a mere inter-account transfer from assessee's own account with Shloka Enterprises.

iii. Bank of Maharashtra, A/c No. 20014081747 (Rs.1,46,56,256/-): It was submitted that this is a joint account in which assessee's husband, Shri Sudesh Shinde (PAN: AENPS9379F), is the primary holder, who carries on business under the proprietary concerns “Janata Wines” and “Surichi Sweets”, has been subjected to tax audit under section 44AB of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21 and has duly accounted for and offered to tax the income, if any, embedded in the said credits in his own return. It was submitted that assessee, being merely a joint/secondary holder, cannot be fastened with liability for credits that legitimately belong to and stand disclosed by the primary holder. 5.2. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the bank statements pertaining to the accounts held with Bank of Maharashtra had in fact, already come on record during the assessment proceedings itself, having been furnished by the said bank in response to notices issued under section 133(6) and could not, therefore, have been treated by ld. CIT(A) as “additional evidence” requiring satisfaction of the conditions under Rule 46A(1) of the Rules, at least to that extent. It was prayed that, having regard to the quantum involved, the fact that this is assessee's first experience of tax litigation and the fact that the documents sought to be placed on record go to the very root of the additions, the additional evidence be admitted and the matter be restored to the file of ld. AO for de novo verification and adjudication in accordance with law.

7.1. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it is apposite to refer to the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom) who held that where the additional evidence sought to be produced is relevant and necessary for arriving at a correct and complete decision, the appellate authority ought to admit the same, rather than adopt a hyper-technical approach that defeats the cause of substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a long line of decisions including Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), consistently emphasized that the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations.

7.2. In the present case, we find merit in the contention of ld. Counsel that the bank statements of the accounts held with Bank of Maharashtra were, in substance, already available on the assessment record, the same having been furnished by the bank pursuant to notices issued under section 133(6) as is evident from the assessment order itself. To that extent, the premise on which ld. CIT(A) proceeded to treat the entirety of the material sought to be relied upon by assessee as “additional evidence” requiring satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A(1) of the Rules is not entirely accurate and requires reconsideration.

7.3. We further note that the documents sought to be placed on record namely, the bank statements, the computation of income, the return of income of assessee's mother-in-law and the material relating to the joint account held with assessee's husband are not in the nature of evidence collateral to the dispute, but go to the very root of the additions made under section 69A. Explanations such as receipt of gift from a relative, dividend and interest income already offered to tax, an inter-account transfer of funds and credits pertaining to a joint account allegedly accounted for by the other joint holder, are all capable of being verified with reference to objective, third-party material and a decision either way, without such verification, would not sub-serve the interest of justice to either party.

7.4. As regards the credits of Rs.1,46,56,256/- in Bank of Maharashtra A/c No. 20014081747, which constitutes the predominant part of the addition, assessee's claim that her husband is the primary holder of the said account and has offered the income embedded therein to tax in his own return, filed after audit under section 44AB is a verifiable fact. We are of the view that, in fairness to both sides, this claim ought to be tested with reference to the bank statement, the husband's return of income, tax audit report and a confirmation from the husband, none of which are presently on record before us, rather than being adjudicated in their absence.

8.1. Ld. AO is directed to admit and examine the additional evidence now furnished by assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law, after affording assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Assessee is directed to fully and promptly co-operate in the set-aside proceedings and to furnish all details/evidence called for, without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which ld. AO shall be at liberty to decide the issue on the basis of the material available on record. Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions, which shall be decided by ld. AO uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove, save and except to the extent indicated above. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- [Amit Shukla] [Girish Agrawal] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03rd September, 2026 MP, Sr. PS Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai