JINESH HARESH HARDE,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE - 2(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM IT (SS) A No.6107/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Jinesh Haresh Harde The Deputy Commissioner of 502, Padmavati Palace, Nanda Patkar Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3) 803, 8th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai – 400057. Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. PAN/GIR No. ACPPH4675K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Pradeep Rawal Respondent by : Shri. Ajay Singh SR. DR. Date of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has challenged the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the income at Rs. 3,28,40,960/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3,40,960/- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the addition of Rs. Rs. 3,25,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, by alleging the same to be unexplained money based on his own assumptions and

IT (SS) A No. 6107/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Jinesh Haresh Harde surmises and without any corroborative evidence and without considering the fact that the appellant had duly substantiated the genuineness of his claim and proved the same beyond doubt. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in not providing the appellant with sufficient time and opportunity to present its case and submit the responses, which is against the principle of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, made by the learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) along with other related grounds of appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of manufacturing & trading of Diamond Jewellery. The assessee had filed his return of income u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, dated 24.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 3,40,960/-, out of income from business or profession and other sources. Pursuant to search and seizure action carried out in the assessee’s case dated 12.10.2019, u/s. 132 of the Act, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a revised computation of income declaring total income at Rs. 3,28,40,960/-. During the assessment proceeding, the ld. AO sought for details of the cash found during the survey proceeding at locker no. 414 in the premises of M/s. Siddhi Safe Vaults Pvt Ltd., amounting to Rs. 3,25,00,000/- and 402 carats of loose diamonds valued at Rs. 20,16,063/-. The reply of the assessee was duly considered by the ld. AO which was found to be not satisfactory and the ld. AO completed the assessment vide order dated 29.09.2021, passed u/s.

IT (SS) A No. 6107/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Jinesh Haresh Harde 143(3) of the Act, determining total income at Rs. 3,28,40,960/- after making an addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 25.09.2024 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceeding and has failed to substantiate his claim. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, it is observed that the ld. AO has made an addition on the cash seized from the locker which the assessee claims that was out of the sale consideration of jewellery which was bequeathed to him by his grandmother Mrs. Kantaben Champaklal Harde who died on 23.05.2006 by a ‘will’. The assessee’s contention was that the assessee has received gold and diamond jewellery dated 17.05.2017 on him completing 27 years as per the conditions of the ‘will’ who then sold the jewellery during financial year 2019-20, through various brokers and had received cash of Rs. 3,25,00,000/-. The assessee further contended that there was a search in 2019 conducted by the department where the said cash was seized by the Income Tax Department. The assessee agrees that he was unable to collate the details of the brokers and parties through whom he had sold the jewellery, due to various reasons. The ld. AO made an addition of the impugned amount and the first appellate authority upheld the addition for the reason that inspite of several notices, the assessee was constantly non-compliant before the first appellate

IT (SS) A No. 6107/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Jinesh Haresh Harde authority. It is pertinent to point out that the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of his contention before the lower authorities. 8. The ld. CIT(A) also did not have an occasion to decide the issue on the merits due to the failure of the assessee in complying with the notice. In order to extend one more opportunity to the assessee, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is strictly directed to comply with the proceedings before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) is to decide the issue on the merits of the case based on the submission of the assessee and in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.02.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 06.02.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai