ACIT CC 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CITYGOLD INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2416/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 July 2026AY 2014-154 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the AO relied solely on an investigation report without independent inquiry and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The fact that the money was refunded and accepted in a subsequent assessment also supported the assessee's case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 2,50,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, considering share application money from M/s. Apsara Vanjiya Limited as bogus based on an investigation report. The assessee provided documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction.

What were the issues?

Whether share application money received from a party identified as a non-genuine entity by the Investigation Wing can be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 without independent inquiry by the AO, despite the assessee providing documentary evidence of genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131(1)(d),Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2416/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

ACIT, Central Circle 2(4) Citygold Investments Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 802, 8th Floor, Shop No.2, Ground Floor IVY Pratishtha Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Buildings No.2, Hubtown Gardenia Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Shantivan Mira Road, Thane-401 107

PAN/GIR No. AACCC7365H (Appellant) : (Respondent)

: Shri Fenil Bhat Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 07.07.2026 : 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

The present appeal of the department arises out of order dated 24.12.2025 of learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) for the assessment year

(A.Y. for short) 2014-15.

2.

The only issue agitated by the department relates to deletion of addition of

Rs.2,50,00,000/-, representing share application money added u/s.68 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, (‘the Act’ for short).

3.

Briefly, the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, the assessee is a resident

corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute, the assesse had originally filed its

return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring income of Rs.1,70,58,650/-. Subsequently, the

2 ITA No. 2416/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2014-15) ACIT vs. Citygold Investments Pvt. Ltd. assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2016, declaring income of

Rs.1,71,43,750/-. Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny.

4.

In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO for short) inter alia

called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the share application money of

Rs.2,50,00,000/- received from M/s. Apsara Vanjiya Limited. In response to the query

raised, the assessee furnished supporting evidences to prove the genuineness of the share

application money. The AO, however, was not convinced. He observed that as per the

report received from office of Pr.DIT(Inv.), Kolkata, M/s. Apsara Vanjiya Limited is a

non-genuine party involved in providing accommodation entry without undertaking any

business operations. He further observed that in response to commission issued

u/s.131(1)(d) of the Act, the DDIT, Investigation Wing-4(1) Kolkata has reported that M/s.

Apsara Vanjiya Limited is managed by well-known entry operators, Shri Arvind Kayan

and Shri Vikrant Kayan. He further reported that they have acknowledged that the company

does not have any genuine business operations. Thus, based on the information/report

received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the AO ultimately concluded that the so-

called share application money received from M/s. Apsara Vanjiya Limited is bogus.

Accordingly, he treated the credit entry relating to such transaction in assessee’s books as

‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s.68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee.

5.

The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate

authority. After considering the submissions of the assesse, in the context of facts and

materials on record, learned first appellate authority, being convinced with assessee’s

submissions that the transaction with M/s. Apsara Vanjiya Limited is genuine, deleted the

addition.

3 ITA No. 2416/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2014-15) ACIT vs. Citygold Investments Pvt. Ltd. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. A reading of the assessment order clearly reveals that the only evidences relied upon by the AO for making the subject addition are the information/report received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata. The assessment order is completely silent regarding any independent inquiry or investigation carried out by the AO to ascertain genuineness of the transaction.

7.

On the contrary, before departmental authorities, the assessee had produced various supporting documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The documentary evidences included the bank statement indicating transaction through banking channel, confirmation from the share applicant, return of income, etc. Further, the assessee had refunded back the share application money to the share applicant. After verifying the documentary evidences, learned first appellate authority has recorded the following factual finding: • The initial burden cast upon by the assessee was discharged by furnishing confirmation, bank statement, PAN and financial statements to prove identity, creditworthiness of the share applicant as also the genuineness of the transaction. • The AO except heavily relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata, which is based on general database inter alia has not conducted in-depth investigation. • No specific finding of cash trial or linkage between the assessee and the entry operator to establish the fund flow. • The entire share application money was refunded back to the share applicant in the subsequent year.

8.

The aforesaid factual finding of learned first appellate authority remains uncontroverted before us. In course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee

4 ITA No. 2416/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2014-15) ACIT vs. Citygold Investments Pvt. Ltd. has further brought to our notice that the assessee had received second trench of share

application money from the very same party in AY 2015-16. Whereas, in a search

assessment conducted under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act, the AO had

accepted the transaction while completing the assessment. A copy of the assessment order

has been placed on record.

9.

Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, we do not find it to be a fit case for

intervention with the decision of the learned first appellate authority on the issue in dispute.

Accordingly, ground raised is dismissed.

10.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 28.07.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →