VIJAY RATNAKAR GUTTE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) dated 26.09.2024 &

07.11.2024 for A.Y. 2013-14. Certain facts in both the appeals are common

and inter-connected, both the assessees have raised certain similar grounds

of appeal, thus, with the consent of parties both the appeals were clubbed,

heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, facts in IT(SS)A No. 60/Mum/2025 is

treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1) On the facts of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in making addition of Rs 2,65,00,000/- particularly when no incriminating material /papers were seized in search action from the premises of the assessee.

2) On the facts of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,65,00,000/-The Appellant Prays for Deletion of the Same.

3) The lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs 2,65,00,000/-without bringing on record any proof as to Assessee has made investment in land or any other Assets. The Appellant does not own any land at Dhule and therefore there is no question of making any investment in land at Dhule. The Appellant prays for deletion of addition made.

4) Without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of Appellant, as to cash of Rs. 2.65 Crore was belonging Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd and therefore addition in hands of the assessee is unjustified.

5) Without prejudice to above grounds and without accepting, addition of Rs. 2.65 Crores on any Account, if it is held against the Assessee, still the same does not fall in F.Y.2012-2013 (Α.Y.2013-14) as clear from the papers seized from premises of Shri Ratnakar Gutte, therefore, the addition is not Sustainable. The Appellant prays to delete the same.

6) Without prejudice to above grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, which are very important for determining the taxability of impugned amount. Hence, it is prayed that order of the CIT(A) may please be set aside with appropriate directions.

7) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, clarify, explain and or withdraw the grounds as occasion may demand.”

ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024

“1. On the facts of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,60,00,000/-Appellant Prays for Deletion of the Same.

2) Without Prejudice to Ground No.1, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2.60 Crores, made by Assessing Officer u/s 69B. The Appellant prays for deletion of same as Sec. 69B is not applicable to the Transaction and the Assessing Officer has not Substantiated the applicability of Sec. 69B of Income Tax Act.

3) The lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs 2,60,00,000 without bringing on record any proof as to Assessee has made investment in land or any other Assets. The Appellant does not own any land at Dhule. The Appellant prays for deletion of addition made.

4) Without prejudice to above grounds and without accepting addition of Rs. 2.60 Crores on any Account, if it is held against the Assessee, still the same does not fall in F.Y.2012-2013 (Α.Υ.2013-14) as clear from seized papers, therefore, the addition is not Sustainable. The Appellant prays to delete the same.

5) Without prejudice to above grounds, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of Appellant, as to cash of Rs. 2.60 Crore belongs Sunil Hitech Engineers ltd.

Appellant prays to accepting the explanation of Source, as Substantiated by Appellant.

(Discussed in Para 1.7 of the Order)

6) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground relating to deductions under chapter VIA of Rs. 1,25,000/- as to 80C, 80D, SOTTA.

7) Without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. AO erred in passing the assessment order in hurry on 29/12/2018 without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, as the assessment proceedings were abated till 12/12/2018 due to pending application before Settlement Commission. Hence, it is prayed that assessment order may please be set aside.

8) CIT(A) has erred in not dealing with Additional Ground before him as to Assessing Officer having not given credit for self-assessment tax paid.

Appellant prays for credit of self-assessment tax and other tax credits.

9) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, clarify, explain and or withdraw the grounds as occasion may demand.”

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that

a search action under section 132 was carried out on Sunil Hitech Group on

16.12.2015. The assessee is one of the directors in Sunil Hitech Engineers

Ltd. The case of assessee was centralised in Central Circle, Mumbai on the

direction in Writ Petition by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Notice under section

153A dated 09.10.2017 was served upon the assessee. In pursuance of

notice under section 153A, the assessee filed return of income. The assessing

officer during the assessment noted that in the search action, a document

was seized as Annexure-A. Page no. 11 of annexure A consists of print out of

e-mail sent by one employee to another employee of Sunil Hi Tech Group

about the different amount in the name of Gutte family aggregating to Rs.

5.25 crores. Details of which are scanned on page no. 4 of assessment order.

On the basis of such e-mail detail, the assessing officer issued show cause

notice as to why the amount mentioned against the name of assessee of Rs.

2.65 crores should not be treated as undisclosed income. The assessee in

response to show cause notice submitted that the alleged cash belongs to

Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. and the assessee was a salaried employee. Sunil

Hitech Engineers Ltd is juristic person and so the cash of company has to be

kept with some individual person. The reply of assessee was disregarded and

addition was made in the hand of assessee. For remaining amount, the

addition of Rs. 2.60 crore was made in the assessment of (Vijay Ratnakar

Gutte, appellant in connected appeal). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed

detail explanation and the evidence to substantiate the fact that Sunil Hitech Engineers Private Limted owned up the alleged cash and filed application

before Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), Mumbai and accepted

that such amount belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers, however, their

application was rejected for technical reason. The additional evidence which

was essential and crucial was not accepted by ld. CIT(A) and the additions

were confirmed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the additional

evidence furnished by assessee is crucial and relevant for real determination

of tax liability and ought to have admitted by ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the

assessee by referring various evidences would submit that additional

evidence furnished by assessee may be accepted and the matter may be

restored back to the lower authorities to consider such additional evidence

and pass the order afresh.

of Sunil Hi Tech Engineers, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted said appeal

is still pending before CIT(A) and that insolvency proceedings were initiated

against the Sunil Hitech Engineers Private Limited before National Company

Law Tribunal (NCLT). In another connected appeal in case of Ratnakar

Manikrao Gutte, which is the subject matter of ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024, the

ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the said case, the assessee furnished

certain details before assessing officer, still assessment was completed under

section 144. The assessing officer has not even allowed deduction under

Chapter VIA of Rs. 1.25 lakh. Out of total alleged cash payment shown on

page no. 11 of Annexure A, Rs. 2.60 crores were added in the hand Ratnakar

M Gutte. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer on account of unexplained income as well as disallowance under section VIA. As the

additions in both the appeals are based on page no. 11 of annexure A,

therefore, this appeal may also be restored to the file of lower authorities.

Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submits that assessee failed to

substantiate contention about the source of alleged unexplained money

either before assessing officer or before ld. CIT(A). No evidence was

furnished by assessee about owning up of alleged amount shown on page

no. 11 of annexure A. Thus, the assessee does not deserve any relief at this

stage. So far as, admission of additional evidence is concerned. The assessee

failed to given cogent reason as per Rule 46 of Income Tax Rules before ld.

CIT(A). Thus, the additional evidence was rightly not accepted by ld. CIT(A).

through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on

various evidences filed in the form of paper book. We find that before

assessing officer, the assessee simply took the plea that details of cash

mentioned on page no. 11 of annexure A belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers

Ltd., however, no cogent evidence was furnished. Before ld. CIT(A), the

assessee filed certain details and the evidence about the stand of Sunil

Hitech Engineers Private Ltd. for owning up the impugned cash transaction

recorded on page No.11 of Annexure-A, that it belongs to Sunil Hitech

Engineers Ltd. However, the additional evidence furnished by assessee was

not accepted by ld. CIT(A) by taking view that additional evidences are not

authenticated and have co-relation and / or no final order is made by ITSC in case of Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. In our view, the finding of ld. CIT(A) in

not admitting the additional evidence is not justified, when the assessee has

tried to substantiate the fact that alleged cash payment shown on page no.

11 of annexure A belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers and that Sunil Hitech

Engineers have owned up such money. Considering the relevancy of

evidence, the evidence furnished by assessee are admitted and matter is

restored back to the file of assessing officer to verify the fact and pass

assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the

assessment order, the assessing officer shall allow reasonable opportunity to

the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidences and

information before assessing officer. In the result, the grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

purposes.

ITA No. 6106/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14)

amount i.e. Rs. 2.60 Crore, recorded on page-11 of Annexure A is added in

the hand of this assessee. The assessing officer completed assessment under

section 144, despite filing certain reply before the assessing officer.

Considering the fact that the in connected appeal we have restored the

matter to the file of assessing officer, therefore, the grounds of appeal in ITA

No. 6106/M/2024 is also restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass

the order afresh. The assessing officer is also directed to consider the deduction of Chapter VIA. The assessee is also directed to provide complete

details of deduction under Chapter VI-A.In the result, this appeal is allowed

for statistical purposes.

purposes.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 18/08/2025 at the time of

hearing.

Sd/- Sd/-

OM PRADASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated:18/08/2025 Biswajit

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai