NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 In response, t 03.04.2019 declaring statutory notices, the In the course of proc entries in the asses represent professiona absence of supportin agreements, or invoic said amount was tre Act. 4. On appeal, the the assessee failed to source of the credits represented professi (Moran and Knobel I The CIT(A) also note professional fees, th same remained unsu relevant finding of th “5. Decision: 5.1 From the 20.12.2019, Assessment p the Appellant Appellant's B to be "Profess stated in the ITA the assessee filed a return g a total income of ₹2,23,330/ e reassessment was completed ceedings, the Assessing Officer ssee’s bank account which w al fees received during the year. ng documentary evidence—suc ces—the explanation was not ac eated as unexplained under Se Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the additio o discharge the onus of proving s. While the assessee asserted ional fees received from a U. Inc.), no corroborative evidence ed that even if such receipts w he deduction of expenses claim ubstantiated and, therefore, not e Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as un : Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 14 it is ascertained that during the co proceedings, the Assessing Officer has t to furnish the particulars of credit entrie Bank Account. The appellant explained t sional Fees" received during the Year. Ho Assessment Order that the Appellant ha Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 3 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 of income on /-. Pursuant to on 20.12.2019. observed credit were claimed to However, in the ch as contracts, ccepted, and the ection 68 of the on, holding that g the nature and that the credits .S.-based entity was submitted. were accepted as med against the t allowable. The nder: 47 dated ourse of required es in the the same wever, it as failed to substantia evidences and 5.2 On the oth has stated th the Appellant based compa has been dec remained non the course of have been con Appellant's ex documents a Contract, etc Assessing Off has only repe Assessment without furn Officer has m Therefore, in Appellant has the source of assessed the the relevant G 5.3 The Appe calculating d deduction u/ whose maxim found that th Income. In t disallowance Assessing Off the same is a regard. The G 5. Before us, the l additional ground c Assessing Officer is u the issue for which th that where reassess reason, no addition ITA ate the above claim with supporting doc d hence treated the same as unexplained her hand, the Appellant in his Grounds o hat the receipts were deposited in ICICI t's NRE A/c. by Moran and Knobel In any. And that the Net Income of Rs. 1, clared in the Return of Income. The Appel n-responsive to the opportunities afforde f Appeal proceedings. The Appellant's nsidered carefully. Even if one were to ac xplanation, there needs to be supporting and Bank Statements, Copy of Agr to the explanation, as rightly mentioned fficer in para 5.1 of the Order. Thus, the A eated and reiterated what he had said du proceedings in the Grounds of Appe ishing the supporting details. The A mentioned the same as Bank Statemen the circumstance, it is concluded that s s failed to discharge his onus by substa f the credits, the Assessing Officer ha e same as unexplained cash credits. Acc Grounds are dismissed. llant has also filed a Ground that the AO deduction under chapter VI by not /s. 80D of Mediclaim amount of Rs. mum allowable deduction is Rs.15,000 he Appellant has claimed it in the R the absence of specific observation o by the Assessing Officer, the Juris fficer is directed to verify the claim and allowable as per the conditions prescribe Ground is allowed for statistical purposes learned counsel for the assesse contending that the addition unsustainable in law as it does he case was originally reopened sment proceedings are initiated can be made on a different is Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 4 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 cuments/ d. of Appeal Bank of nc. a US 79,238/- llant has d during Grounds ccept the g details, reement/ d by the Appellant uring the eal also Assessing nts only. since the antiating s rightly cordingly O erred in allowing 17,482/- /-. It is Return of on such ictional d allow if ed in this s.” ee has raised an made by the s not pertain to . It is submitted d for a specific ssue unless the addition is also made In support, reliance Bombay High Court Taxman 117 (Bom)]. 5. Per contra, th submitted that in t assessee in the regul the reassessment pro that had escaped ass Jet Airways (I) Ltd. present case. 6. We have heard the relevant material provides that if the A income chargeable assessment, he may assess or re-assess chargeable to tax wh to his notice subsequ section”. Further, E inserted by the Fina which provides as fol "Explanation under this se ITA e on the issue for which reasons e is placed on the judgment t in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Lt . he learned Departmental Repr he instant case, no return w lar course, and therefore, any a oceedings would be deemed to r sessment. It is thus contended t (supra) is not applicable to th rival submissions of the parti s on record. We find that section Assessing Officer has reason to to tax has escaped assess subject to the provisos of sect such income “and also any hich has escaped assessment an uently, in the course of proceed Explanation 3 to section 147 ance (No. 2) Act of 2009, w.e. llows: 3.—For the purpose of assessment or ection, the Assessing Officer may asses Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 5 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 s were recorded. of the Hon’ble td. [(2010) 195 resentative has was filed by the addition made in relate to income that the ratio in he facts of the ies and perused n 147 of the Act believe that any sment for any tion 148 to 153, y other income nd which comes dings under this of the Act was .f. 01.04.1989 , reassessment ss or reassess the income in and such issu proceedings u such issue ha sub-section (2 6.1 The issue came the case of Jet Airw Officer can make add any addition on the i High Court held in Explanation 3 does Section 147, namely respect of other iss addition on the issu income had escaped the expression "an cumulatively, and u issue, no addition o finding of the Hon’ble “16. Explanat interpretation grounds other under section had escaped when the ass that income Assessing Off on another is This interpret Explanation Explanation fulfilling the ITA respect of any issue, which has escaped ue comes to his notice subsequently in the under this section, notwithstanding that th ave not been included in the reasons re 2) of section 148." e up before the Hon’ble Bomba ways (I) Ltd. (supra) as to whe dition on any other ground if h issue for which case was reopen Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) not override the principal c y, that reassessment can vali sues only if the Assessing Of ue which formed the basis of assessment. The Hon’ble High nd also" in Section 147(1) unless reassessment is made on other issues is permissible e High Court in reproduced as u tion 3 lifts the embargo, which was inser n, on the making of an assessment or rea r than those on the basis of which a notic n 148 setting out the reasons for the belie assessment. Those judicial decisions h sessment was sought to be reopened o had escaped assessment on a certa fficer could not make an assessment or ssue which came to his notice during the tation will no longer hold the field after th 3 by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 20 3 does not and cannot override the conditions set out in the substantive p Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 6 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 d assessment, e course of the he reasons for ecorded under ay High court in ether Assessing he did not make ned. The Hon’ble lays down that condition under idly proceed in fficer makes an the belief that Court held that is to be read on the original e. The relevant under: ted by judicial assessment on ce was issued ef that income had held that on the ground ain issue, the reassessment e proceedings. he insertion of 09. However, necessity of part of section 147. An Expl its contents a substance an Assessing Of income") whic the formation reassess any which, comes However, if a the contention has initially f has as a ma him independ so, a fresh legality of wh assessee. 17. We have for decision i based on the the precedent has been urg stands postu that income assessment y such income comes to his escaped ass cumulative an the alternati Parliament. O led to the inse be regarded a the words "a Singh's case that decision. plenitude of it 147(1) as the hold the field. 6.2 In the instant c the Assessing Office under: ITA anation to a statutory provision is intend and cannot be construed to override it nd core nugatory. Section 147 has this e fficer has to assess or reassess the i ch escaped assessment and which was n of belief and if he does so, he can a y other income which has escaped ass s to his notice during the course of the after issuing a notice under section 148 n of the assessee and holds that the inc formed a reason to believe had escaped tter of fact not escaped assessment, it i dently to assess some other income. If he notice under section 148 would be n hich would be tested in the event of a cha approached the issue of interpretation th in these appeals, both as a.matter of f e language used in section 147(1) and on t on the subject. We agree with the subm ged on behalf of the assessee that sectio ulates that upon the formation of a reas chargeable to tax has escaped assess year, the Assessing Officer may assess "and also" any other income chargeable notice subsequently during the proceedin sessment. The words "and also" are nd conjunctive sense. To read these word ive would be to rewrite the langua Our view has been supported by the back ertion of Explanation 3 to section 147. Pa as being aware of the interpretation that w and also" by the Rajasthan High Court (supra). Parliament has not taken away . While it is open to Parliament, having ts legislative powers to do so, the provisi ey stood after the amendment of 1-4-198 .” ase, reasons recorded, has been er. For ready reference same Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 7 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 ded to explain or render the effect that the income ("such s the basis of also assess or sessment and e proceedings. 8, he accepted come which he d assessment, is not open to e intends to do necessary, the allenge by the hat has arisen first principle, n the basis of mission which on 147(1) as it son to believe sment for any s or reassess e to tax which ngs as having e used in a ds as being in age used by kground which arliament must was placed on t in Shri Ram y the basis of regard to the ions of section 89 continue to n reproduced by is extracted as “It is seen fro Income for Α. available on relevant to th following tran Sr. No. N 1. T N E L P 3. As per CIB assessee wa Commodity E Exchange Ltd 4. A letter v 2014 was ge available on has not comp has duly been 5. On perus system and a that, the asse from the abov Commodity M Further, desp transacted in the assessee tax 6. Besides, gi assessee did with the matt from filing th assessee has 2011-12 corre Rupees Fifty OneHundred be an escape 147 of the I.T. 6.3 In the instant ca to believe that inco ITA om Non-filer data, the assessee has not f .Υ. 2012-13. However it is observed fro I-taxnet, It Is found that during the he A.Y.2012-13, the assessee has ent nsactions: Nature of the Transaction Summary re The assessee has made National/Multl Commodity Exchangve Contract of Rs. 10 Lakhs and above for Sale or Purchase in the Exchange- CIB Transact B Information, during the year under con as engaged in the transaction of N Exchange Contract of Rs. 51,53,51,129/- d. ide no. NMS2/AA0PV0747R/3006131 nerated-&-Issued from system against th NMS Cycle-2, I-Tax Net Portal however; plied with the sald letter till date. As suc n verified on the ITBA Portal on 360 degre al and verification of the Information after considering the same prima facle essee has the Income chargeable to tax. ve that despite of having such a huge Market but falled to disclose Capital pite of having known sources the a Commodity Market therefore, it is room has some undisclosed sources which is iving an opportunity to comply with the a not consider the matter seriously and fa ter till date. Considering the above fact a he return of Income It is reason to be s concealed his Income earned during the esponding to the A.Y. 2012-13 of Rs. 5 One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty TwentyNine] which is chargeable to tax h ed assessment and therefore the provisi T. Act, 1961are applicable to this case." ase, the Assessing Officer had re ome had escaped assessment Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 8 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 filed return of om the details e F.Y.2011-12 tered into the eference tion code:502 nsideration the National/Multi -In MCX Stock dated, 17-02- he Information the assessee ch Information ee profile. available on it is observed it can be seen transaction in gain thereon. assessee has to believe that chargeable to above fact the ailed to comply and abstaining lleve that the financial year 51,53,51,129/- OneThousand has deemed to ons of section ecorded reasons t in respect of substantial transacti firstly, no capital investment from reassessment order, examined the bank such transactions an was in that context unexplained cash c Officer is reproduced “5.1 Unexpla On perusal of has credit e Trading in were explain As per assess Legal Docume the client's Balakodingud assessee was the receipt Agreement/C However till supporting do Professional arguments b assessee to e documentary details submi debited expe 831425/- (Rs as Profit on s these expens passing this the expenses assessee fail expenses clai ITA ions (to the tune of ₹51.53 crore gain disclosed and second undisclosed sources. On p , it is evident that the As credits that were claimed to b nd found the same to be uns that the addition of ₹8,00,187/ redit. The relevant finding of as under: ained Cash Credit f the bank statements It is seen that entries on various dates which are t the Commodity transactions, the s ned as Professional Fees received dur see's work profile assessee was engaged ents, amendments and other admistrat retirement plan as per the advi di. During the course of the assessmen s asked to submit the documentary evide of Professional fees alongwith t Contract and other supporting document date assessee has not submitted ocumentary evidence to justify the cred Fees. The asseessee failed to sub by documentary evidences. The onus explain the source of Credit entries in th evidences which assessee failed. On itted by the assessee it is found that the enses of Rs 6,52,187/- against the r s 800187/- claimed as professional fees sale of Share) during the year. However ses were furnished by the assessee til order. The onus lies on the assessee to s claimed with documentary evidence led. Since the income is treated as Un imed against such income, suo moto d Nikhil RAshiklal Vora 9 A No. 3628/MUM/2025 es) on the MCX, dly, source of perusal of the ssessing Officer be the source of ubstantiated. It /- was made as f the Assessing the assessee the source of same credits ring the year. d in preparing tive works for ice from Mr nt proceedings ence regarding the copy of tary evidence. any kind of dit entries as bstantiate his lies on the he banks from verification of assessee has receipt of Rs + Rs 31238/- r no details in ll the date of o substantiate es which the nexplained so does not exist.