AJIT GHANSHYAM SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable as it was not based on any substantive material or corroborative evidence. The order passed by the Ld.AO was considered bad in law and reflected a non-application of mind.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on allegations of paying cash of Rs. 10,31,256/- over and above the agreement value for a flat purchase. The addition was made because the assessee allegedly did not provide documentary evidence for this cash payment.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO based on alleged unexplained cash payment without sufficient evidence is sustainable in law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16.
In the instant case, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act, mainly on the allegations that the assessee has paid cash of Rs. 10,31,256/- over and above the agreement value of flat bearing No. B/808 purchased from Unique Span Group in Samrudhi Building, Bhayander, which ultimately resulted into making of addition of Rs. 10,31,256/- just simple on the reason “that the Assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in respect of unexplained cash amounting to Rs. 10,31,256/- paid to the builder”, and in the absence of any substantive material or any corroborative evidence or reason. Thus, in the considered view of the court, the addition in any case is un-sustainable and therefore this court is in agreement with the claim of the Ld. Counsel that the order passed by the Ld.AO is not only bad in law but also reflects non-application of mind, as the same is not based on any substantive evidence or material. Thus, addition is deleted, by allowing appeal of the Assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
