MANISH JAMANBHAI VAISHNAV,BHINWADI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, THANE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 967/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2026AY 2019-206 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for other assessment years, held that the addition under Section 69A was not warranted if the amount formed part of the additional income offered by the Antariksh Group. The deletion of the addition was made subject to verification by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, cash transactions in the assessee's name were found. The Assessing Officer treated a cash payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- as unexplained money and made an addition under Section 69A of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the assessee constituted unexplained money or belonged to the Antariksh Group entities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 132,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 292C,Section 132(4A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLENARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunke,Ld. D.R
Pronounced: 31.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER:NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10.12.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny pursuant to the search and seizure action conducted under section 132 of the Act in the Antariksh Group on 14.02.2019. The Antariksh Group has been engaged in residential, warehousing and commercial retail development for several years. During the search, certain documents were seized, which reflected cash transactions in the Assessee’s name. As per page No.1 of Bundle No.1/MN-06, the entries were recorded against Manish—Rs.12,00,000/-, AC—Rs.3,30,000/-, Joshi—Rs.9,60,000/- and Chenu—Rs.2,00,000/-.

3.

The Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) thus in order to verify such transaction qua Assessee, issued a show-cause notice to the Assessee; however, the Assessee did not furnish any explanation.

4.

The AO observed that Flat No.701, Punit Sagar Complex, New Kaneri, Bhiwandi, occupied by Shri Manish Vaishnav, was searched on 14.02.2019. The cash payment of Rs.12,00,000/- made by the Assessee to Shri Anuj Vyas during the F.Y. 2018-19, was neither recorded in the books of account nor offered in the return of income.

5.

Thus, the AO treated the cash payment of Rs.12,00,000/- as unexplained money and made the addition under section 69A of the Act.

6.

The Assessee therefore being aggrieved, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. During the appellate proceedings, the Assessee filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which was forwarded by the Ld. Commissioner to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short, “JAO”) for a remand report. The JAO submitted the remand report dated 08.08.2025. Though an opportunity was afforded, the Assessee neither furnished comments on the remand report nor appeared on the subsequent dates of hearing. The Ld. Commissioner, thus considering the facts of the case and the remand report, upheld the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- by observing as under:

“6.5 As stated above, the appellant has neither furnished his comments on the remand report nor appeared for hearings on the dates specified. 6.6. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant and the remand report of the JAO. In this regard, it is seen that the appellant has not denied transaction of Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash as found in the seized document. During appellate proceedings, the Assessee contended that the transactions belongs to Antriksh Group and filed undated confirmations from Antariksh Logitech LLP and Subhvastu Infrastructure LLP. The Assessee claimed that the said amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- had been included by M/s. Subhavastu Infrastructure LLP in its settlement application and filed relevant extract of statement of facts as per application filed before the Hon'ble Interim Board of Settlement by the latter. 6.7 In the remand proceedings, it appears that the Assessee changed his stand by claiming that Rs. 12,00,000/- were provided by Antariksh Logitech LLP. The JAO in remand report stated that there are entries of funds given to Anuj Vyas and it is highly improbable that mere custodian was lending funds; that therefore, the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- belonged to Antariskh group is just a self-serving argument & effort to mislead the statutory proceedings; that no conclusive evidence had been provided for the claim that payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- belonged to Antariksh Logitech LLP; that the Assessee had not established any direct nexus between the said amount of Rs. 12,00,000 and disclosures made by M/s. Subhavastu Infrastructure LLP before Settlement Commission. The Assessee failed to rebut the findings of the JAO stated in remand report with supporting evidences, It is also important to note that the said papers were seized from the residence of the appellant and therefore provisions of section 292C and sec. 132(4A) of the Act are clearly applicable in this case. It is also found that in the confirmation letters submitted by M/s. Subhavastu Infrastructure LLP and Antariksh Logitech LLP has not categorically admitted that the cash of Rs. 12,00,000/- belongs to them. Thus, it is clear that the Assessee failed to explain, to the satisfaction of the AO, about the nature and source of cash of Rs. 12,00,000/-advanced to Shri Anuj Vyas, who had admitted in his statement recorded during the search such transaction. 6.8 In view of the facts of the case and above discussion, I am of the considered view that the AO was justified treating Rs. 12,00,000/- as deemed to be the income of the Assessee for the year under consideration u/s 69A of the Act and therefore, the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- is upheld.

6.9 The ground no. 3 raised by the appellant is regarding the invocation of section 115BBE of the Act. No separate submission is made in this regard. Further, I have already upheld that the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- is taxable u/s. 69A of the Act. Therefore, the invocation of section 115BBE for said income is of consequential nature. Accordingly, the grounds no. 2 and 3 are DISMISSED. 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed.”

7.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal.

8.

We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions. The Assessee submitted that throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, he denied having made the alleged cash payment of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Assessee further submitted that the transaction belongs to the Antariksh Group and, in support thereof, Assessee filed the confirmations from Antariksh Logistics LLP and M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP. It was further claimed that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- has already been included by M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP in its settlement application. The Assessee has also furnished the relevant extract of the statement of facts filed before the Hon’ble Interim Board of Settlement.

9.

The Ld. Commissioner, though considered the aforesaid submissions, however, observed that during the remand proceedings, the Assessee changed his stand by claiming that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was offered to taxation by Antariksh Logistics LLP. The Ld. Commissioner further observed that the Assessee failed to establish any direct nexus between the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and the disclosure made by M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP before the Settlement Commission. Further, the confirmations furnished by M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP and Antariksh Logistics LLP did not categorically admit that the cash of Rs.12,00,000/- belonged to them.

10.

To controvert the aforesaid findings, the Assessee relies upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2018-19 in ITA Nos.5890/M/2024 and 5891/M/2024 respectively, wherein an identical issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee.

11.

The Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, in the above case, considering the additional income offered by the Antariksh Group and the affidavit filed by M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP, held that no addition under section 69A of the Act was warranted in the Assessee’s hands.

12.

For brevity and ready reference, the relevant findings of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench are reproduced herein below:

“8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee was working for the Antariksh Group and had received the impugned cash on behalf of one of the group entities, as has been admitted by the M/s. Shubhvastu Infracon LLP in their affidavit filed before Ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the order of IBS shows that additional income of Rs. 34,20,10,221/- has been offered by the Antariksh Group which includes Rs. 7,32,16,844/-in the hands of M/s. Shubhvastu Infracon LLP. Further addition has also been made by Commission to the extent of Rs 3,12,86,800/-after which total income of M/s. Shubhvastu Infracon LLP has been determined at Rs. 11,06,73,944/- as against the returned income of Rs. 61,70,300/- for all the years from AY 2013-14 to AY 2019-20.

9.

In view of these facts, we are of the view that the group has declared substantial additional income which includes on-money received from its customers and the assessee's contention that he merely received these amounts on behalf of the group entities has been confirmed by M/s. Shubhvastu Infracon LLP by submitting an affidavit to this effect. We, therefore, hold that no addition u/s 69A of Rs. 50,000/- in the hands of the assessee should have been made. The other amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- received on 02.07.2014 falls outside the period of consideration, hence could not be added in AY 2014-15. Thus, total addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act is hereby deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed.”

13.

Thus, considering the aforesaid findings of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench and the claim raised by the Assessee, we are inclined to delete the addition, however subject to verification by the JAO, as to whether the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- forms part of the additional income offered by Antariksh Logistics LLP or M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP. The JAO may examine the concerned persons of the Antariksh Group and M/s Subhvastu Infracon LLP, if required. Upon being satisfied with the Assessee’s claim, the JAO shall delete the addition in accordance with law.

14.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

(Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. 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 →