INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MAHESH K JOSI(HUF), MUMBAI

At the outset, i none appeared on b moved seeking adjou record, it transpires 14.05.2025 was retu the endorsement “ circumstances, this assessee was not inte the appeal was proce merits after due cons learned Departmenta 3. The brief facts assessee had filed it total income of ₹2,14 from the office of the Unit-7, Mumbai, in accommodation entri and controlled by on carried out under S short, “the Act”). On Officer recorded reas had escaped assess Section 148 of the A During the course o ITA it is observed that despite issu ehalf of the assessee nor was rnment of the proceedings. Upo s that the notice issued for urned unserved by the postal a “party refused”. In view of Bench was of the considered erested in prosecuting the matt eeded ex-parte qua the assesse sideration of the submissions a al Representative (Ld. DR). giving rise to the present dispu ts return of income on 02.09. 4,950/-. Based on specific infor e Deputy Director of Income-tax ndicating that the assessee ies from a group of concerns all ne Shri Vipul V. Bhatt on whic Section 132 of the Income-tax n the basis of such information sons to believe that income ch sment and consequently issue Act on 30.03.2017 to reopen t of reassessment proceedings, s Mahesh K Joshi (HUF) 3 A No. 2241/MUM/2025 uance of notice, any application on perusal of the hearing dated authorities with the aforesaid d view that the ter. Accordingly, ee and heard on advanced by the ute are that the 2011, declaring rmation received x (Investigation), had availed of legedly managed ch a search was x Act, 1961 (for n, the Assessing hargeable to tax d notice under the assessment. everal statutory notices were issued compliance on the having noted that the aggregating to ₹64,4 proceeded to complet treating the said amo 3.1 In the appeal p placed reliance on th submitted that his purposes and that h such entries. The appellate orders pas parties, such as Mr. Mumbai had deleted the Act and instead d commission income @ in the bank accounts 3.2 After considerin him, the Ld. CIT(A) t among the 347 perso Vidur Bhatt (specific No. 15) and held tha the said transactions ITA d to the assessee. However, part of the assessee. The As e assessee had received accomm 47,880/- during the relevant te the assessment under Section ount as unexplained income. preferred before the Ld. CIT(A he sworn statement of Shri Vipu name was misused for accom e had merely received commiss assessee also placed reliance ssed in the cases of other s . Rajul M. Trivedi, wherein the d the entire addition made unde directed the Assessing Officer to @ 0.21% of the debit side transa s of those entities. ng the submissions and materia ook note of the fact that the ap ons named in the sworn stateme cally at Serial No. 129 in respon at the assessee was not the rea s. Relying on similar decisions Mahesh K Joshi (HUF) 4 A No. 2241/MUM/2025 there was no ssessing Officer, modation entries previous year, n 144 of the Act, A), the assessee ul V. Bhatt and mmodation entry sion for allowing e upon certain similarly placed e Ld. CIT(A)-46, er Section 68 of assess only the actions recorded als placed before ppellant was one ent of Shri Vipul nse to Question al beneficiary of in other cases, the Ld. CIT(A) conclu @ 1% of the total deb and accordingly dele Assessing Officer. Th as under: “5. I have ca of appeal and the records t parte order un The appellan assessing off relying on the the basis for used for acco also reference case of Vipul decisions to amounts. I have careful noted that th Q.15 of the S 347 individua accommodatio appellant is Accordingly, appellate au precedents re view that ass transaction in ends of just beneficiary of addition mad assessing off the appellan the bank acc 4. Before us, the Assessing Officer had ITA uded that an estimation of com bit transactions would meet the eted the addition of ₹64,47,880 he relevant finding of the ld CIT(A arefully considered the assessment order, d other relevant material on record. It is that the assessment challenged in appe nder section 144 of the Act. nt, in the written submission, argue ficer erred in treating him as a benefici e statement of Shri. Vipul Bhatt, which w the additions, it was contended that hi mmodation business for a commission. T ed cases of assessment arising from the s Bhatt, wherein the appellate authorities assess only the commission on the lly considered the appellant's written sub he appellant (refer S.No.129 of the list of Sworn statement of Vipul Vidur Bhatt) wa als managed by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhat on entries to the beneficiaries. It is no not the beneficiary of the mentioned t taking into consideration the decis uthorities in similar cases and the o elied upon by the appellant, I am of the sessing the commission income at 1% of th n the bank account of the appellant wou tice, as the appellant is not the rea f the transactions in the bank account. T de by the assessing officer is delete ficer is directed to estimate the commissi nt at 1% of the total debit tra count.” e Ld. DR vehemently conte d clearly identified the assessee Mahesh K Joshi (HUF) 5 A No. 2241/MUM/2025 mmission income e ends of justice 0/- made by the A) is reproduced the grounds s noted from eal is an ex- ed that the iary. Further was used as is name was The appellant search in the s have made e transacted bmission and f entities per as one of the tt to provide oted that the transactions. ion of first ther judicial e considered he total debit uld meet the al owner or Therefore, the ed, and the on income of ansaction in nded that the as a beneficiary of accommodation en 347 concerns contro that the findings of more importantly, th other material were without being confron principles of natural 1962. 5. Upon careful material available o submissions advance has mi irected him concerns controlled b Officer had specifica accommodation entri by the Ld. CIT(A) on c the factual matrix o misplaced. 5.1In the circumstan impugned order of th therefore, set aside t file of the Assessing furnish all relevant d ITA ntries received from 47 parties olled by Shri Vipul V. Bhatt. It the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to hat the statement of Shri Vipu filed for the first time before nted to the Assessing Officer, th justice and Rule 46A of the Inc consideration of the rival co n record, we find considerabl ed by the Ld. DR. It appears tha mself in treating the assessee by Shri Vipul V. Bhatt, wherea ally identified the assessee as ies issued by such entities. The comparable cases without prope f the present case, in our con nces, we are of the considered he Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustain the said findings and restore th g Officer with a direction to t documentary evidence to substa Mahesh K Joshi (HUF) 6 A No. 2241/MUM/2025 out of the total t was submitted the record and, ul V. Bhatt and the Ld. CIT(A), hus violating the come-tax Rules, ontentions and le merit in the at the Ld. CIT(A) as one of the as the Assessing a beneficiary of e reliance placed er verification of nsidered view, is d view that the ned in law. We, he matter to the the assessee to antiate his claim that the transaction accommodation entr same in accordance reasonable opportuni 5.2 In the result, th for statistical purpose 6. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (SANDEEP SING JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 31/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.