RAJESH HARIBHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD-24(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals pertain to the same assessee filed against the order of NFAC Delhi (for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)], order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12, date of orders 21.03.2024 and 22.06.2023 respectively. The impugned order emanated from the orders of the Ld. Income Tax Officer-Ward 24(3)(5), Mumbai (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 and 143(3) r.w.s. 147, date of order 30.12.2017 and 19.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. Both the appeals pertain to the same assessee and arising out from a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of by a common order for convenience ITA No.2776/Mum/2026 for A.Y. 2010- 11 is taken as lead case and decision rendered there in shall be applied mutatis mutandis to other appeal. 3. The registry informed that both the appeals for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011- 12 are filed with a delay for 660 days and 932 days respectively. The assessee submitted the petition for seeking the condonation of delay for filing appeals supported by a notarized affidavit of assessee himself duly sworn on 05.08.2026 which are placed on record. The assessee explained the delay for filing appeals and delay is caused due to the medical emergency. We find the delay is caused beyond his control & there is sufficient cause for delay is filing both the appeals. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection. So, the delay for both the appeals is condoned. ITA No.2776/Mum/2026 for A.Y. 2010-11 4. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is an individual and dealing in tools and hardware items under the name and style of “India International”. The assessee filed the return declaring total income 7,58,730/-. Thereafter the assessment was completed u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the total income of Rs.11,28,110/-. The assessee’s case was reopened u/sec. 148 related to the statement of Vijay T. Arban. An information was received from ITO, ward- 27(3)(5), Mumbai that in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act in connection with the recovery proceedings in the case of Shri Vijay T. Arban. It has been stated by Shri Vijay T Arban, man of very small means and he is working in Reechir Marketing Co as a peon. The cash deposits in his bank account does not pertains to him but to his employer Shri Rajesh Haribhai Shah. On the strength of this information, the proceedings in this case were reopened and the reassessment proceedings was initiated. From assessment it reveals that the assessee has opened a bank account in Bank of Baroda in Crawford Market Branch in the name of Vijay T Arban made the transactions. The Ld. AO found that the total credit in the bank account of Shri Vijay T Arban amount to Rs.2,05,05,291/-. The Ld. AO treated the entire transactions as an unaccounted income from the assessee and hence the amount of Rs.2,05,05,291/- is hereby bought to tax in the hands of the assessee on protective basis u/sec. 69 of the Act as unexplained money. It is also found that the assessment passed u/sec. 144 of the Act in case of Shri Vijay T Arban and addition was made amount to Rs.44,15,775/- which is related to this undisclosed income and was also added back u/sec. 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition was made total amount to Rs.2,49,21,066/- with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed an order exparte without due compliance of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) finally uphold the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.