VINOD KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, JAIPUR

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 (Assessment Years:2017-18, 2013-14 & 2016-17)

Vinod Kanwar Vs. ACIT, 101/28, Patel Marg Central Circle-02, Mansarovar, Jaipur Jaipur

�थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BKIPK9154L Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Ramkishan Choudhary, CA Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.05.2026 O R D E R The captioned three appeals have been preferred by assessee against the separate orders ofCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jaipur -04 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 23.07.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 2. First we take up the appeal of the assessee ITA No.1360/JP/2025. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA"), without obtaining proper and mandatory approval from the approving authority as explicitly required under Section 153D. The impugned assessment order passed under section 153D, is therefore illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, rendering it null and void. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire order, being illegal and void-ab-initio. 2.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Id. AO has grossly erred in making the addition under Section 153A without any incriminating material found during the search proceedings, thus violating the settled judicial principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 459 ITR 212. The action of ld. AO, confirmed by Id. CIT(A) is therefore illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and against the settled position of law. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire order under Section 153A. 3.Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2. the ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,37,500/- under Section 69 of the ITA, treating the legitimate and explained investment in property as unexplained, despite clear submissions regarding the source of funds from accumulated savings and gifts received on marriage. The addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the facts and law. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition. 4.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has grossly erred in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE despite clear evidence and explanation regarding the source of investment in the property. The invocation of Section 115BBE confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is unjustified, arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to facts and provisions of law. Relief may please be granted by quashing the invocation of section 115BBE. 5. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds on or before the date of hearing. 4. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the addition of Rs.5,37,500/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short, “the AO”) on account of unexplained investment in the property. 5. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action was carried on in the case of assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 2nd August 2017 and subsequently, the assessment for six assessment years were

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar reopened. So far as the year under consideration is concerned, no incriminating material was found during the course of search action. The AO in this case has made the impugned addition based on certain documents, which were not recovered from the premises of the assessee but from some other person in a separate survey proceedings unconnected with the search action in the case of the assessee. For the year under consideration, assessment already stood completed/non abated on the date of search. Since no incriminating material was found during course of search action, therefore, in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.[ 2023] 459 ITR 212, the impugned additions are not sustainable and the same are ordered to be deleted. 6. In the result this appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 7. Now we take up the another appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.1361/JP/2025 8. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ("ITA"), without obtaining proper and mandatory approval from the approving authority as explicitly required under Section 153D. The impugned assessment order passed under section 153D, is therefore illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, rendering it null and void. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire order, being illegal and void-ab-initio. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 44,305 by disallowing the cost of acquisition claimed out of Short-Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares, without appreciating documentary evidence submitted by the assessee demonstrating payments made through proper banking channels. The impugned addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the facts and law. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition.

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 9,00,000 under Section 69A of the ITA, treating a legitimate gift from the assessee's mother-in-law as unexplained investment, despite clear evidence provided in the form of bank statements demonstrating genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the lender. The impugned addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the facts and settled position of law. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has grossly erred in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the source of funds was explained and duly substantiated through documentary evidence. The invocation of Section 115BBE confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is unjustified, arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and provisions of law. Relief may please be granted by quashing the invocation of Section 115BBE. 5. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds on or before the date of hearing. 9. A perusal of the above reproduced grounds would reveal that there are only two substantive issues pressed by the assessee. The first issue is relating to the unexplained investment in purchase of a shop. The assessee along with another person purchased a shop for Rs.22,66,141/- The assessee’s share in the property came to Rs.12.29 lakhs. Being asked to explain the source of the aforesaid investment, the assessee explained that out of such amount of Rs.12.29lacs, Rs.9lacs were gifted by his mother. The assessee also produced the bank statement before the Assessing Officer to show that the amount of Rs.9/- lacs was transferred from the account of his mother to the assessee. The AO asked the source of the aforesaid amount in the hands of the mother of the assessee, to which the assessee explained that she was an old aged lady and amount was saved/accumulated by her over the years. However, the AO was not satisfied with the above explanation and made the impugned addition into the income of the assessee, which has been further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar 10. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, out of the total investment of Rs.12.29/- lacs, the AO has already accepted the source of Rs.3.29lacs. The AO has only doubted the gift of Rs.9lacs received by the assessee from his mother. The assessee has duly furnished the bank details of his mother account also. The AO has not pointed out that there were any immediate cash deposits in the said bank account of the mother of the assessee. It has been further explained that the aforesaid amount was saved and accumulated by her over the years. Hence, considering the smallness of the amount and the explanation given by the assessee, I do not find it a fit case for making impugned addition and the same is accordingly order to be deleted. 11. The next issue is relating to addition of Rs.44,305/- made by the AO by disallowing the cost of acquisition of the shares. The assessee during the year claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.2162. He claimed that the cost of acquisition was Rs.44,305/- however, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents such as contract note, purchase note etc. The assessee explained that the concerned broker, through which the said transactions in shares were done, had been barred by the SEBI and did not give the details to the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details, hence, disallowed the cost of acquisition of the shares. 12. Having heard the rival contentions, in my view, the above action of the AO is not justified. The assessee in this case has claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.2162/- only. If the assessee had failed to furnish

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar the requisite details, the AO could have treated the said amount of Rs.2162/- as income from other sources. However, there is no question of making an addition on account of disallowance of cost of acquisition without any substantial evidence on the file that the assessee had made any investment out of undisclosed sources. Therefore, the impugned addition is not sustainable and the same is order to be deleted. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 14. Now we take up the another appeal of the assessee ITA No.1356/JP/2025 15. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA"), without obtaining proper and mandatory approval from the approving authority as explicitly required under Section 153D. The impugned assessment order passed under section 153D, is therefore illegal. arbitrary, unjustified, rendering it null and void. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire order, being illegal and void-ab-initio. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 4,50,818 by disallowing the cost of acquisition claimed out of Short-Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares, despite submission evidence clearly demonstrating payments through proper banking channels. The impugned addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the facts and law. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has grossly erred in disallowing the genuine business loss of Rs. 64,829 incurred in Futures & Options trading, despite documentary evidence and bank statements substantiating the transactions. The disallowance confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the facts and law. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds on or before the date of hearing.

P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar 16. A perusal of the above grounds would reveal that the assessee has raised three substantial grounds of appeal. Vide the Ground No.1 it has been contended that there were certain discrepancies in approval granted by the Ld. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that he does not want to press the ground No.1 of appeal. Therefore, Ground No.1 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 17. The second issue is relating to the addition of Rs.4,50,818/- on account of disallowance of cost of acquisition claimed out of Short Term Capital Gain shown by the assessee on sale of shares. This issue is identical to that which have been discussed in ITA No.1361/JP/2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17, my finding given above will mutatis mutandis apply on this issue also. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue is ordered to be deleted. 18. In the Ground No.3, the assessee has agitated against the disallowance of speculative business loss of Rs.64,829/- incurred in Future and Options trading. As noted above, the assessee did not furnish any details of the transaction. The same plea was taken that the broker has not provided the said details. It may be so, however, the claim of loss merely on the plea that the details have not been provided by the broker, cannot be allowed. The assessee has to show by positive evidence that such a loss actually been incurred by the assessee. Therefore, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. 20. In view of the above observations, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

P a g e | 8 ITA Nos. 1356, 1360 & 1361/JPR/2025 Vinod Kanwar 21. Hence, in the result, in the ITA Nos.1360 & 1361/JP/2025 stand allowed, whereas,ITA No.1356/JP/2025 is partly allowed. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 19/05/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member Dated 19.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur