RUSHIKANT JAYWANTRAO SHINDE ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2019/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2026AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rushikant Jaywantrao Shinde, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Agra, dated 31.12.2025, which upheld the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle-20(3), Mumbai, dated 27.12.2019, under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessment was reopened as the assessee had not filed a return under Section 139(1). Although the assessee e-filed a return on 31.03.2013, it was marked as invalid. The AO noted six transactions in Form 26AS aggregating to Rs. 16,39,478/- for FY 2011-12 that were not considered by the assessee, leading to a notice under Section 148. The assessee failed to respond to subsequent notices, resulting in the addition of Rs. 16,39,478/- to his income. The CIT(A) also upheld this addition.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under Section 144 due to the assessee's failure to furnish details and documentary evidence. The CIT(A) also found that the assessee did not provide a proper reconciliation of income or supporting documents. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted additional evidence regarding cash deposits and credit card payments, claiming the funds originated from a partnership firm. The assessee also contended that the underlying transaction details from Form 26AS, forming the basis of the addition, were not provided by the AO. The Tribunal found these aspects, especially in light of the additional evidence, required factual verification by the Assessing Officer. The claim of non-furnishing of transaction details also needed examination at the assessment stage. Therefore, without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is to provide the transaction details, and the assessee must furnish all relevant documentary evidence and reconciliation. The AO will then pass a fresh order after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 16,39,478/- made on the basis of ITS/26AS data is sustainable without providing details and establishing that the transactions represent taxable income of the appellant, as per Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,39,478/- based on ITS/26AS data without providing details and establishing it as taxable income. - Gross transaction entries in ITS/26AS do not constitute income, especially when the assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 15,69,072/-. The addition is unsustainable without material to prove it as taxable income. - The assessment order was passed without a DIN number. - The assessee provided explanations for cash deposits (Rs. 2 lakh) and credit card payments (Rs. 2,59,500/-), attributing them to capital withdrawn from a partnership firm, M/s Yes Express Solutions, and business promotion expenses. The remaining additions could not be explained due to lack of details from the revenue. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142,Section 192

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Akshay, Shri Azhar Kabir, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 30.09.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Addl/JCIT (A), Agra [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 31.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, arises from the assessment order under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 27.12.2019, passed by ACIT, Circle-20(3), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. AO”]. Rushikant Jaywantrao Shinde

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. Additions of Rs. 16,39,478/-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in b

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →