PIYUSH MANILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-32(2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2297/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the cash deposits, the addition of the entire amount was erroneous. The approach of considering only credit entries while ignoring withdrawals was also incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return declaring total income. A notice u/s 148 was issued regarding cash deposits of Rs. 1,52,08,125/- in his minor son's bank account, allegedly from grandparents. The assessee failed to provide details of the donors' creditworthiness, leading to the addition of the entire amount u/s 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of entire cash deposits made in the minor son's account u/s 68 is justified without considering withdrawals, and if the peak credit method should be applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan,(Sr. DR)
Hearing: 07.07.2025Pronounced: 09.09.2025

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →