ACIT- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHWETA ABHISHEK MUNDRA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8682/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 October 2026AY 2016-175 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of a coordinate bench of the ITAT in the cases of the assessee's husband and father-in-law for the Assessment Year 2016-17, where identical additions concerning the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Limited were deleted. The CIT(A) had also relied on these decisions. The Tribunal noted that the sale of shares was evidenced by transactions through a registered stock exchange at specific trade times, and the net receipts were credited to the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal found no tangible material on record to treat the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit or to add them under deeming provisions. Furthermore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,373/- under Section 69C for commission was also deleted by the CIT(A) as the primary addition of capital gains was deleted and the commission was paid for shares sold on a recognized stock exchange. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order due to the doctrine of binding precedents and the need for judicial consistency, as the Revenue could not distinguish the facts or present new evidence. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Department (ACIT-26(1), Mumbai) against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 09.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee, Shweta Abhishek Mundra, had claimed long-term capital gains of Rs. 67,97,462/- as exempt income under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions, treating the scrip of M/s. Yamini Investment Limited as a penny stock. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 3,32,373/- under Section 69C for commission paid on booking bogus capital gains. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, relying on ITAT decisions for the assessee's husband and father-in-law for the same assessment year and regarding the same scrip.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the long-term capital gains of Rs. 67,97,462/- claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) and Rs. 3,32,373/- claimed as commission expenditure under Section 69C were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A) which, in turn, relied on the decisions of a coordinate bench of the ITAT in the cases of Abhishek Rajendra Kumar Mundra (husband) and Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF) (father-in-law) for AY 2016-17. These decisions had deleted similar additions made on account of the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investments Company Ltd. The CIT(A) also relied on the decision in Sujit Madan (ITAT Delhi). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order in allowing the long-term capital gain in favour of the assessee. The Ld. DR could not point out any difference between the facts of the decided cases and the present case, nor did they present new facts or documents to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 69C,Section 69A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

Pronounced: 21.10.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081604189(1) dated 09.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 67,97,462/- in the favour of the instant assessee which was claimed as exempted income u/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act & 69C

2.

The solitary ground raised by the Revenue relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the long-term capital gain in favour of the assessee.

3.

In this regard, we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had earned long-term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Limited. However, the additions were made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the said scrip was a penny stock scrip.

4.

In this regard, we notice that the issue in question is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT in the case of the husband of the assessee, Abhishek Rajendra Kumar Mundra, and also in the case of the father-in-law, Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), for Assessment Year 2016-17.

5.

The said decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT was also relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the additions made in the present case. The operative portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Para 6.3.4 During the appellate proceedings the appellant has furnished the copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of her husband Abhishek Rajendrakumar Mundra and in the case of father in Law Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF) for A.Y. 2016-17 wherein addition made treating sale of shares of Yamini Investments Company Ltd as bogus have been deleted. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in its judgement noticed that 'the sale of shares was evidenced from transaction undertaken through registered stock at a specific trade time in BSE and after the sale of shares, the net receipts had been credited to the assessee's bank account. Hence, the nature of the transaction was clearly purchase and sale of shares and the source of the credit, from the material facts on record were quite evident that it was from the sale of shares. As there was no tangible material brought on record to convert these transactions then it is very difficult to treat the sale proceeds of the shares as unexplained cash credit to be added under deeming provisions of section 68. There was no evidence or any whisper that some unaccounted money had been routed and hence, sale proceeds should not be added.'

Para 6.3.5 In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Abhishek Rajendrakumar Mundra and decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Sujit Madan, the addition of Rs. 66,47,462/- made by AO treating exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of Act on sale of shares of Yamini Investments Company Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant is hereby deleted. Accordingly ground no. 3 to 11 of appeal are allowed.

Para 6.4 Ground no. 12 and 13 of appeal are related to the addition of Rs. 3,32,373/-u/s 69C of the Act.

Para 6.4.1 The addition of Rs. 3,32,373/- was being made by AO u/s 69C of the Act considering commission paid by appellant on account of booking bogus capital gain of Rs. 66,47,462/-. Since the addition of Rs. 66,47,462/-made u/s 69A of the Act is already deleted and considering the fact that commission/ service charges/brokerage was paid by the appellant to the persons who sold the shares on behalf of the appellant at recognized stock exchange ie. BSE, the addition of Rs. 3,32,373/-made in respect of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act does not sustain. Accordingly, ground no. 12 and 13 of appeal are allowed.

Para 7. In the result the appeal is allowed."

6.

Since the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by relying on the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT in the family members' cases of the assessee, where identical additions in respect of the sale of the same scrip were deleted, and the facts of the present case are identical, the doctrine of binding precedents and the need to maintain judicial consistency warrant no interference.

7.

Even otherwise, the Ld. DR could not point out the difference between the facts of the case decided by the coordinate bench of the ITAT and the facts of the present case, and no new facts or circumstances or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with or to deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue stand rejected.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 21.10.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: ACIT- 26(1), MUMBAI, ROOM NO. 249, 2ND FLOOR, G BLOCK, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA SHWETA ABHISHEK MUNDRA, UNIT NO 140,HUBTOWN SOLARIS, N S PHADKE MARG, ANDHERI EAST, 2 MUMBAI, 19-MAHARASHTRA, 400069, 91- INDIA, MUMBAI-400069, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →