APURVA PRADEEP SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1)(4) MUMBAI (NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1)(1)) , MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER: BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17 on following grounds of appeal: 1

ITA 1426/MUM/2026 APURVA PRADEEP SHAH A.Y. 2016-17

ITA 1426/MUM/2026 APURVA PRADEEP SHAH A.Y. 2016-17

deposited cash amounting to Rs. 16,32,650/- in the following bank accounts. Sr. No. Date of deposit Name of the bank Amount (Rs) 1. 28.08.2015 DCB Bank Ltd 5,00,000 2. 30.09.2015 DCB Bank Ltd 6,00,000 3. 22.12.2015 DCB Bank Ltd 7,650 4. 19.02.2016 DCB Bank Ltd 18,000 5. 10.03.2016 DCB Bank Ltd 2,00,000 6. 31.03.2016 DCB Bank Ltd 3,00,000 7. 07.04.2015 HDFC Bank 7,000 Total Cash 16,32,650 Deposited 3. a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in sustaining the disallowance of 34,39,293 claimed under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against long-term capital gains arising from the sale of gold ornaments. The Learned CIT(A) erred in disbelieving the source of the gold ornaments sold by the Appellant merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and in confirming the disallowance of the Appellant's legitimate claim under section 54F in respect of investment made in residential property out of the sale proceeds of gold amounting to *34,39,293. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in overlooking the fact that the gold ornaments sold by the Appellant were received by him from his father Mr. Pradeep B Shah weighing 968 grams and mother Jayshree Pradeep Shah weighing 310 grams, being ancestral family assets, the Learned CIT(A) further erred in disregarding the settled legal position that in the case of movable property, transfer is validly completed by mere delivery with intention to transfer, without any requirement of registration, in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Indian Registration Act, 1908. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding that the source of gold was duly explained through gift deeds from parents and inheritance under a Will from grandmother, and in overlooking that the gold was sold during the

ITA 1426/MUM/2026 APURVA PRADEEP SHAH A.Y. 2016-17 relevant year, income was offered to tax, and exemption was rightly claimed under section 54F of the Act. 4. a) On the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the learned CIT (A)erred in adding the sum of Rs 25,68,850/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the submissions made explanations and evidences given by your appellant and treating it as unexplained income. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in overlooking that the Appellant had multiple disclosed and regular sources of income, including remuneration as Director from M/s. Glumex Pharmaceuticals Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., remuneration and interest from partnership firms namely Life Medicare and Life Medico, income from other sources and capital gains, and further erred in ignoring the availability of a cash balance of *13,70,180 as on 31st March 2015, which adequately explained the cash deposits. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 9,36,200/- on account of cash deposits by disregarding the documentary evidence and explanations furnished by the Appellant, and in making the addition merely on suspicion without establishing that the cash deposits represented unexplained income of the Appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in treating cash deposits of 16,32,650 made in the bank account of the Appellant's spouse, Mrs. Usha Apurva Shah, as the income of the Appellant, ignoring the fact that she is an independent assessee having separate and identifiable sources of income, including remuneration income, past savings, amounts received from relatives and friends on the occasion of marriage, and savings out of household expenses, and therefore the addition so made is erroneous and unsustainable in law 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating non-application of mind by the

ITA 1426/MUM/2026 APURVA PRADEEP SHAH A.Y. 2016-17 Assessing Officer in observing that the assessee "along with his wife "Smt. Uma Pradeep shah" had deposited to your account amounting to Rs.16,32,650/- whereas there is no person in the name of "Uma Pradeep Shah" 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,08,143 (Rs. 34,39,293 +Rs. 25,68,850) to the total income made by the Assessing Officer, and consequently in upholding the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.

2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed in respect of the addition made on cash deposits that no documents were filed to justify the cash deposited during the year and the source of cash specially when assessee is in the job/profession which does not involve any case transaction.

2.2. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that the issue need to be remanded to the Ld.AO in the interest of justice to determine the issue in accordance with law having regard to the evidences furnished by the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnished relevant evidences in support of its claims which

ITA 1426/MUM/2026 APURVA PRADEEP SHAH A.Y. 2016-17 shall be verified by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ANKIT, PS Mumbai Dated: 14.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलधथी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनतवधदी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकिआयुक्त CIT 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनननध, आय.अपी.अनध., म ुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गधर्ाफधइल/Guard file. TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI