BHARAT KANTILAL PANCHAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1866/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 September 2026AY 2018-198 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 dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of Rs. 53,00,000 as unexplained investment based on incriminating material found during a search. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground related to undisclosed income and the disallowance under Section 80C, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order confirming an addition of Rs. 53,00,000 as unexplained investment and another addition of Rs. 17,16,000 as undisclosed income. The assessee also challenged a disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000 under Section 80C. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained investment based on seized documents is justified. Whether the addition of undisclosed income and disallowance under Section 80C were correctly handled by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri Ankit Agarwal, SR.AR
Pronounced: 04.09.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NFAC, dated 29-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

A) Addition of Rs.53,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment is unjustified and liable to be deleted

1.

The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs.53,00,000/-u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment without appreciating that:

a. the Appellant has NOT made any payment in cash for acquiring any property either to Ashirwad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. or any other person;

b. there is no incriminating evidence found in course of search action of third party i.e. Mohini Shelters P. Ltd. conclusively proving any such payment made in cash;

c. the excel sheet found from the employee of M/s. Mohini Shelter P. Ltd. ie. Shri Abhijeet More, is dumb document and nowhere in that excel sheet, any payment made by Appellant in cash is noted and also confirmed by the said employee in his statement recorded that no cash is received and the column relates to proposed home loan;

d. the addition could not be made merely on the basis of assumption and presumption;

e. the Ld. Predecessor CIT(A) in orders passed in other cases held the same excel sheet to be dumb document;

and thus, the addition made u/s.69 of the Act of Rs.53,00,000/- as unexplained investment is without any justification and needs to be deleted.

B) Addition of Rs.17,16,000/- as undisclosed income as per 26AS may be deleted:

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the addition made of Rs. 17,16,000/- to AO for verification without appreciating the fact that:

a) the addition is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on third party but based on regular records such as Form 26AS and thus, legally not valid, bad in law and liable to be deleted,

b) No addition could be made merely on the basis of Form 26AS; Without prejudice above, the Appellant purchased car for Rs.17,16,000/-on which TCS is deducted and reflected in Form 26A5 and thus, this is not undisclosed income of the Appellant and even though car purchase bill was filed before CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition instead of setting aside to AO, and hence, the addition of Rs.17,16,000/- is without any justification and liable to be deleted.

C) Disallowance of deduction claimed w/s.80C-Rs.1,50,000/- may be deleted

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the disallowance u/s.80C of the Act of

Rs.1,50,000/- to AO for verification, without appreciating that:

a) the addition is not based on any incriminating material found as result of search on third party but based on claim made in the return of income filed and thus, legally not valid, had in law and liable to be deleted;

b) Deduction of PF amount deducted from employee salary by employer and duly reflected in Form 16 and filed before AO and thus, the disallowance of deduction u/s.80C of the Act of Rs.1,50,000/- is not justified:

c) Without prejudice to above, once the PF deduction by employer is reflected in Form 16 duly filed before AO and CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance instead of setting aside to AO: and hence, the disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- is without any justification and liable to be deleted.

4.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even in spite of repeated calls. Even on the last date of hearing, none appeared. Therefore, the Bench directed to serve the assessee. In this regard, notice was sent through speed post, by email and also through DR. But even in spite of that, the assessee has not appeared. Therefore, drawing an inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service of summons/notice has been duly effected.

3.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

4.

Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in Para No. 7.2 of its order and the operative portion of the same is reproduced herein below:

In respect of this ground, apart from raising the ground in Form No.35, the appellant has not furnished any submission/detail/supporting detail / evidence in the written.. submissions furnished. In such facts and circumstances, I am inclined to arrive at a decision that the appellant is not keen on pursuing this ground of appeal. Further, even on merits of the issue involved in this ground, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the ld. AO

The Id. AO had had made addition based upon concrete piece of evidence found during the search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, conducted in the case of Mohini Group on 07.05.2018. The aforesaid piece of evidence was in the form of excel sheet titled as Ashirwad Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. and dated as 22.03.2018, which was found & seized the residential premises of Sh Abhijeet More, a key employee of Mis Mohini Sheltors Pvt. Ltd. and was marked as page 119 of Annexure A -5 (comprising pages number from 1 to 119) and it contained details of persons to whom flats were allotted, total amount for flat allotment, amount of payments made by such persons in cheque as well as in cash, balance amount, etc. The Id. AO had noted in the assessment order that as per the excel sheet, the appellant had made cash payments amounting to Rs.53,00,000/- towards allotment of a flat in the said society to the builder-developer -M/s Mohini Sheltors Pvt. Ltd. More so, after duly examining the details furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO found that all the columns in the excel sheet were correct regarding the entries made against the name of the appellant viz. amount of payment made in cheque (Rs.6 lakh), Flat No. (Flat No.1103). In such facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. AO came to the conclusion that entry of cash payments amounting to Rs.53,00,000/-made against the name of the appellant as found in the excel sheet was also correct. Accordingly, the Id. AO added sum of Rs.53,00,000/-, being cash payments made by the appeliant to M/s Mohini Sheltors Pvt. Ltd. towards allotment of flat in Ashirwad co-operative Housing Society, as 'unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

In view of the above, it is evident that the addition has been made based upon incriminating material found during the search. Also, proper opportunity has been afforded to the appellant and submissions of the appellant have been duly considered and rebutted accordingly by the Id. AO. Therefore, I uphold the action of the Id. AO of making addition of unexplained investment of Rs.53,00,000/-, being cash payments made by the appellant towards allotment of flat. Whereas, the appellant was not able to defend this ground of appeal by making any written submission / evidence in support thereof. In absence of any material made available to contradict the action taken by the Ld. AO, this ground of appeal fails on merits. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.

5.

After hearing the learned DR, on perusal of the record, it is found that the additions in this case were made by the AO on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. After providing opportunity of hearing, the AO had made additions, being cash payments made by the assessee towards allotment of flat.

6.

In this regard, no new facts or circumstances or documents have been placed on record by the assessee in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere with or to deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee.

7.

Ground No. 2 of the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition on account of undisclosed income of Rs. 1,7,16,000. In this regard, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in paragraph 7.1 of its order and the operative portion of the same is reproduced herein below:

I have gone through the submissions furnished by the appellant as well the assessment order passed by the Id. AO and the facts of the case. On perusal of copy of invoice for car purchase, it is seen that purchase amount is mentioned at Rs.17,16,000/-, and the name of the party, is mentioned as 'Landmark Lifestyle Cars P. Ltd.. In the light of such facts emanating from this piece of evidence, it would be better serve the purpose of justice, if the Id. AO examine this piece of evidence vis-à-vis details reflected in Form 26AS such as amount, party name, date, whether TDS or TCS to ascertain that the aforesaid sum of Rs.17,16,000/- was actually payment / expenses incurred by the appellant for purchase of a car and TCS was collected by the counter party upon this amount. Therefore, I direct the Id. AO to verify the details mentioned in the purchase invoice for car with the details reflected in Form 26AS regarding the impugned amount of Rs. 17,16,000/- and if found explained, delete the addition of Rs.17,16,000/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.8. After perusing the record, we found that Ld.

CIT(A) had specifically directed the AO to verify the details mentioned in the purchase invoice for the car, which is reflected in Form 26AS, in regard to payment of Rs. 1,7,16,000.

9.

Before us, the assessee has not produced any new facts or circumstances or documents on record to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere with or to deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee.

10.

Ground No. 3 relates to the assessee challenging the order of learned CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance under section 80C of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in paragraph 7.3 of its order, which is reproduced herein below:

I have gone through the submissions furnished by the appellant as well the assessment order passed by the Id. AO and the facts of the case. On perusal of Form 16 submitted by the appellant (issued by the employer -OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED), it is seen that amount of Rs.1,90,959/- is mentioned as PF contribution. In this connection, the appellant has brough to my notice an important that in the appellant's case, for four years, (AY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18-covered under the block assessment) and AY 2019-20, identical issue of disallowance u/s 80C on account of PF contributions by the employers, were raised in the appellate matters and Orders had been passed u/s 250 of the Act, dated 30 June 2023, whereby it had been held that:

"Nevertheless, it is evident that issue involves simple factual verification at the end of the Ld. AO based on the details already available on his record. Hence, to make the ends of justice meet, the Ld. AO is directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80C after due verification based on and to the extent of the PF payment details mentioned in the Form- 16 of the assessee for the year under consideration, which has been stated to be already submitted by the assessee-appellant at the time of the subject-assessment proceedings (and would thus be readily available on the record/s of the Ld. AO".

In view of the above, for sake of consistency, I am inclined to the give directions to the Id. AO on identical line of action to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80C after due verification.

Accordingly, this ground of appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

After analyzing the decision of Ld. CIT(A), we found that CIT(A) has directed the AO by relying upon the decision in assessee's own case for block assessment for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2019-20, wherein the identical issue of disallowance under section 80C was decided. Thus, we find no substance in this ground, therefore, this ground raised by the assessee also stands rejected.

12.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 04.09.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: BHARAT KANTILAL PANCHAL , 85, DEEPAMANI 3RD FLOOR, J.B NAGAR, 1 NEAR COENKA HILL ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400059, MAHARASHTRA

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), R.NO. 659, 6TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR 2 BHAVAN, M R ROAD,, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →