MR. MANISH BHAVANJI BHEDA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 76,32,173 made u/s 69A.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law it is submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 76,32,173 made u/s 69A without appreciating that: a. The said addition is based on only surmises and suspicions b.There was no link at all between the Appellant and Mr. Sanjay Shah/Jignesh Shah c. The Sources of investment in shares of Padmanabh Industries Ltd were proved. d. The genuineness of transactions in the said shares was proved. It was also proved that the transactions in the said shares were not tainted e.No opportunity to cross Mr Jignesh Shah or to rebut the adverse statements relied on by the learned AO was given. f. Provisions of section 69A had no application g. Provisions of section 11588E had no application

Without prejudice to the above, in the facts of the case the quantum, of addition of Rs. 76,32,173 is grossly arbitrary and on extremely higher side.

The learned CIT (A) erred in not holding that the impugned assessment made u/s 147 was bad in law and time barred and was passed without giving a fair opportunity of hearing.

Relevant facts of the case are that the assessee, being an individual, filed return of income of Rs 1,98,000/-.Consequent to a search and seizure operation in the case of Sri Jignesh Shah and Sri Sanjay Shah of Ahmedabad on 11.09.2018,it was found that they were engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries to various entities in the form of unsecured loan, Capital gains ,share subscriptions etc. through multiples bogus companies and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries having taken an alleged bogus loan of Rs 76.32 lakh from one of such bogus companies i.e. Padmanabh Industries/Nilchem Industries Ltd during the year under consideration. The AO, in the absence of any satisfactory reply of the assessee in this regard, treated the impugned sum as Unexplained money and added the same to the returned income.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who observed that there was no compliance to appeal notices before him.Consequently, he considered the materials on record and dismissed the appeal upholding the addition made by the AO.

We have carefully considered the factual matrix of the case.It is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to make proper representation before the AO and necessary details were not furnished. However,it is observed that despite reproducing the contents of the assessment order in the appellate order which also contains submissions of the assessee before the AO,the ld.CIT(A) did not examine the issue independently for reasons best known to him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issue in hand deserves to be examined afresh and the assessee should be allowed an opportunity of hearing before the ld.CIT(A) before passing a de novo order. The matter is, therefore, remanded back to him for considering the issues before him afresh. Needless to state, he would allow the assessee opportunity of hearing to canvass his case.Therefore,the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result,the instant appeal is allowedfor statistical purposes. 8.ITA No.1294/MUM/2026(AY 2019-20)

Without prejudice to the above, in the facts of the case the quantum, of addition of Rs. 1,02,79,444 is grossly arbitrary and on extremely higher side and the same is clearly untenable.

The learned CIT (A) erred in not holding that the impugned assessment made u/s 147 was bad in law andtime barred and was passed without giving a fair opportunity of hearing.

Relevant facts of the case to be noted are that the assessee being an individual filed return of income of Rs 240/-.Consequent to a search and seizure operation in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of Ahmedabad on 11.09.2018,it was found that they were engaged in the activity of accommodation entries provider though multiples bogus companies and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries having made share transactions Rs 1.02 cr with such bogus companies i.e.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who observed that there was no compliance to appeal notices before him.Consequently, he considered the materials on record and dismissed the appeal upholding the addition made by the AO.

Since the issues are identical and also assessment and appellate orders were passed in exactly similar manner, the decision in appeal for AY 2018-19 rendered therein in para6 above would apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for the instant appeal as well. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating all the issues afresh. Needless to state ,he would allow the assessee opportunity of hearing to canvass his case and pass the appellate order in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Consequently, both the above stated appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.