SAMEER SHAHBUDDIN PATEL,BELAPUR vs. ITO WARD 28(3)(1), VASHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4061/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the unreconciled difference between purchase and sale figures, and discrepancies persisted even at the appellate stage.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. A difference of Rs. 23,20,716/- between ticket sales and purchases was treated as unexplained money and added to the income.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between ticket sales and purchases, treated as unexplained money, was adequately explained by the assessee. Whether penalty proceedings and interest levied were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 133(6),Section 271AAC(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor- Sr. AR
Hearing: 20/08/2026Pronounced: 31/08/2026

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

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 4061/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sameer Shahbuddin Patel ITO Ward 28(3)(1) Flat No. 302, Plot No. Z-3, IT-Office, Vashi Railway Station Kokan Vihar Co-op Soc., Vs. Building, Navi Mumbai-400705, Sector 23, Shahbaz Village, Maharashtra. Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AMLPP1985E Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : None : Ms. Kanupriya Damor- Sr. AR Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 20/08/2026 Date of pronouncement : 31/08/2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)') for Assessment Year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the Id. CIT(A) vide Order U/s 250 dated 19/02/2026 has seriously erred in Law and on the Facts and it in the circumstances of the case in confirming Ld. AO's Order U/s 147 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making Alleged Addition of Rs.

ITA 4061/MUM/2026 2 Sameer Shahbuddin Patel

23,20,716/- as Alleged Addition U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on Account of Alleged Unexplained Money of which the true nature of source remains unexplained. The said Alleged difference being fully explainable thereby the said Order U/s 250 & the Order U/s 147 rws 144B may be DELETED, ON MERITS. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the ld. CIT(A) vide Order U/s 250 dated 19/02/2026 has seriously erred in Law and on the Facts and it in the circumstances of the case in confirming Ld. AO's Order U/s 147 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of initiating Penalty Proceedings U/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Consequential relief be Directed to be given if any and/or Delete the said Proceeding U/s 271AAC(1) as per the outcome of this Appeal 3. The Appellant further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s "234A, 234B, 234C, 234D" and other Applicable Provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. Consequential relief be Directed to be given to re-computed the said Interests, if any and/or Delete the Interest as per the outcome of this Appeal 4. Your Appellant craves leave, to add to, vary, amend, modify or alter, the aforesaid grounds and or adduce further evidence, before or at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 22.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.4,48,520/-. Subsequently, information was received regarding cash deposits aggregating to Rs.29,54,774/- in two bank accounts of the assessee. On the basis of such information, the assessment was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] was issued on 29.07.2022. In response thereto, the assessee filed his return on 17.08.2022, declaring the same income of Rs.4,48,520/-.

2.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of travel and tourism and earns commission from sale of tickets. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices

ITA 4061/MUM/2026 3 Sameer Shahbuddin Patel

under section 133(6) of the Act to the parties from whom purchases were stated to have been made. Two of the parties, however, did not respond. On examination of the ledger account of one of the parties, the Assessing Officer noticed that only payments were reflected therein and no corresponding purchases were recorded.

2.2 Further, on the basis of the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed purchases of Rs.1,16,28,469/- against ticket sales of Rs.1,39,49,185/-. Since, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee earned only commission on the sale of tickets and there could ordinarily be no unexplained difference between the corresponding purchase and sale figures, the difference of Rs.23,20,716/- was treated as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal.

3.

The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition, principally observing that the figures and particulars furnished by the assessee at the appellate stage did not reconcile with those furnished during the assessment proceedings. In particular, the purchases shown in respect of Riya Travel and Tours (India) Private Limited differed between the two sets of details; the assessee referred to eight parties in the appellate proceedings as against five parties considered by the Assessing Officer; and the alleged local purchases of Rs.6,71,367/- were not supported by party-wise particulars. The learned CIT(A) accordingly held that the discrepancies remained

ITA 4061/MUM/2026 4 Sameer Shahbuddin Patel

unreconciled and that the assessee had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the difference of Rs.23,20,716/-. The addition was consequently confirmed.

4.

Despite notifying, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment sought. The earlier notice fixing the appeal for hearing on 02.07.2026 had also remained unattended. Therefore, in the above facts, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was, therefore, heard ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.

5.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The addition rests essentially on the unreconciled difference between the purchase and sale figures furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had specifically noticed discrepancies in the ledger of Riya Travel and Tours (India) Private Limited and in the details of other purchases, and had afforded the assessee an opportunity to explain the same. No satisfactory reconciliation was furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT(A). Even at the appellate stage, the figures furnished by the assessee differed from those considered during assessment proceedings and the alleged local purchases remained unsupported by party-wise details.

ITA 4061/MUM/2026 5 Sameer Shahbuddin Patel

5.1 In these circumstances, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of satisfactorily explaining the discrepancy which formed the basis of the addition. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,20,716/-. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed.

6.

The Ground No. 2 relates to initiation of the penalty proceeding which is premature at this stage and therefore same is dismissed. The Ground No.3 of the appeal is related to interest under section 234A and 234B, charging of which is consequential in nature and therefore same is also dismissed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/08/2026 Kunal Kr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →