PRASHANT GOLAK MAJHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.2975/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Prasant Golak Majhi Income Tax Officer - Ward 42(3)(1) 1903, C2, Tulip, Runwal Garden Kautilya Bhavan, C-12, Bandra Kurla City, Balkum Majiwada, Mumbai- Vs. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400608. 400051. PAN: AOFPM1228P

Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue by : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya (Sr. DR.) Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2026

ITA NO. 2975/Mum/2026 Prasant Golak Majhi O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of

Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Additional/JCIT 1 Jaipur [“the Ld. CIT(A)]

dated 07.01.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17, which in turn arises from

assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated

25.12.2018 passed by The Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(2)(5), Mumbai (in short,

“the Ld. AO”). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur has erred in confirming the action of 14 Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 21,20,350/- by treating the cash deposits made in the bank account of the Appellant as unexplained income, without properly appreciating the facts and explanations placed on record. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the impugned addition under section 115BBE at the rate of 30%, instead of applying the normal slab rates applicable to the Appellant for the relevant assessment year. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Brief stated the assessee is an individual, who had filed his e-return for

assessment year 2016-17 on 27.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 8,77,320/-.

The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of

cash deposits. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. In response,

assessee’s AR furnished written submissions. It is observed that during the year

under consideration, the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 21,20,350/-

ITA NO. 2975/Mum/2026 Prasant Golak Majhi in his bank account. Therefore, the details to substantiate the genuineness of such

decisions are called for from the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that

he had received such sums from his father-in-law and wife to the tune of Rs.

7,50,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- out of natural love and affection, so as to purchase

the residential house property. Affidavits of wife, Ms. Jyoti Prasant Majhi and

father-in-law are also furnished before the Ld. AO. The assessee also furnished the

details of cash withdrawals from financial year 2010-11 to 2014-15 aggregating to

Rs. 21,50,230/- and even during the year under consideration, the assessee has

withdrawn Rs. 7,60,400/-. It is submitted that the remaining figure which the

assessee has deposited was only Rs. 9,70,000/- during the year, apart from the

amounts received from his wife and father-in-law. The Ld. AO discussed the

response of assessee. However, was not convinced with the same and observed

that the assessee was unable to furnish bank statements for previous years and also

unable to furnish any valid supporting evidence. Hence, he decided that the entire

amount of Rs. 21,20,350/- remains unexplained and, therefore, needs to be added

back to the income of assessee as unexplained income for the year under

consideration.

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, was unable to convince the Ld.

ITA NO. 2975/Mum/2026 Prasant Golak Majhi CIT(A) who found substance in the findings of Ld. AO and, therefore, had failed the

addition made by the Ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee before us.

person and regular in filing of his returns. During the year under consideration, the

assessee has purchased a residential property for which his wife and father-in-law

had contributed in the form of gifts by way of cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs.

7,50,000/-, both his wife and father-in-law has given the written affidavit that they

are willfully, out of nature love and affection, handed over such cash to the

assessee. Further it is submitted that the remaining amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- is

deposited by the assessee out of his withdrawals in the last five assessment years

having withdrawal of Rs. 21,50,000/- plus the withdrawal for current year are for

Rs. 7,60,400/-. Therefore, the assessee has duly explained the amount of cash

deposits by him which should not be doubted by the revenue authorities.

authorities.

on record. From the documents furnished before us, we find that the assessee’s

wife has also income which she has declared in her ITR for 2016-17 for Rs. 2,71,000/-

ITA NO. 2975/Mum/2026 Prasant Golak Majhi . Therefore, it can be conferred that she is capable of contributing an amount of Rs.

4,00,000/- to the assessee for buying of a residential house. Further, an amount of

Rs. 7,50,000/- was contributed by assessee’s father-in-law, a senior citizen aged 62

years, has admitted that he has accumulated and preserved certain cash for himself

and also arranged some loans and advances from friends and relatives to support

his daughter and son-in-law for buying a residential house. Such admission of the

father-in-law can also be acceded to. Further since the assessee has withdrawn a

cash of Rs. 7,60,000/- during the year under consideration itself, even if we don’t

find substance in assessee’s submission regarding withdrawals in preceding years.

If he may be allowed the amount of cash withdrawal after utilization of certain

amounts for regular house-hold needs, an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- can be

considered to be explained which is deposited by the assessee in his bank account.

Further, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,70,350/- has to be treated as unexplained

in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld. AO shall

sustain to that extent-.

direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 18,50,000/-,

while sustain the addition of Rs. 2,70,350/-.

ITA NO. 2975/Mum/2026 Prasant Golak Majhi 9. In result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed, in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18-06-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SMT. BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 18-06-2026. Soumili Das, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai