SHAHANAVAJKHAN DAUDKHAN PATHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Shahanavajkhan Daudkhan Pathan Sector 1, House No. 1 G-1 Lane, Cheeta Camp, Trombay Mumbai-400 088. Vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(1) Vashi Railway Station Building Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. PAN : ARKPP6986H Appellant
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
In this appellant’s appeal, the Ld. AO passed an ex-parte order under section 69 of the I.T. Act by making addition of Rs. 11,40,443/- towards various fixed deposits made in a bank, as the source of making these deposits was not explained. The Ld. CIT(A) gave substantial relief to the appellant and confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,28,559/- under section 69A of the Act.
1. Aggrieved by the part-relief by Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal :-
The Ld. AO erred in and CIT(A) erred on confirming addition of Rs.
3,28,559/- as unexplained investment.
The Ld. AO/CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that FDs made are form salary income earned during the year and also few FD’s which were prepared in earlier year are matured and renewed. Thus, source of FD is fully explained.
During the hearing proceedings before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the appellant argued that he can explain the source of these FDRs of Rs.
Shahanavajkhan Daudkhan Pathan
2
3,28,559/- also and with the help of a list of FDRs, he has stated that the source of these FDRs is only rolled over from earlier FDRs and no extra investments were made by him in this year. Accordingly, written submissions were also filed which are reproduced below :-
“1. The Ld. AO passed an ex-party order by making various addition which inter alia included addition of Rs. 14,40,443/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, being unexplained Money.
2. Upon appeal to CIT-A, I have filed various details including bank statement and CIT-A deleted other additions as well as restricted the addition u/s 69A to Rs. 3,28,559/- instead of Rs. 14,40,443/-.
It is submitted that, I have not made any such FD's worth Rs. 14,40,443/-. I have made FD's worth Rs. 12,72,145 only. In support of this I have already obtained Certificate from bank and it is filed as additional evidence. Further the summary of the FD's made by me (which is prepared out of such certificate and matching with Bank statement) is given below for easy reference once again.
I do not know as to how FD's worth Rs. 14,40,443 have got reported into form 26AS. Thus, out of remaining addition of Rs. 3,28,559/-, difference of Rs. 1,68,298 may please be deleted.
W.r.t. remaining addition of Rs. 1,60,261/-, it is submitted that, while filing submission before CIT-A, I have highlighted the FD's made by me in the bank statement.
Inadvertently I missed to highlight the entry of Rs. 1,60,261 dt. 4th July
2011 which remained to highlighted. The said FD was also made out from genuine sources and therefore the addition made by the AO be deleted.
Below is the Summary of FD's prepared by me which is prepared from the certificate from Bank matching with the Bank statement.
Deposit Reference (A/C Number)
Start Roll
Over Date
Principal
Amount
2274470132078
25-04-2011
38,733
2274470134375
23-05-2011
48,012
2274470137045
20-06-2011
3,03,745
2274470138289
04-07-2011
1,60,261
2274470139585
18-07-2011
2,57,055
2274470140790
01-08-2011
1,54,883
2274470142154
15-08-2011
26,565
2274470147509
17-10-2011
1,47,183
2274470156453
06-02-2012
90,258
2274470159479
19-03-2012
45,450
Total
12,72,145
Shahanavajkhan Daudkhan Pathan
Thus, it is prayed to grant appropriate relief.”
From the above written submissions, it is seen that the appellant has not filed these details relating to Rs. 3,28,559/- before the Ld. AO. In view of the same, the Bench has decided to remit the issue back to the file of Ld. AO for examination and denovo assessment to this extent of Rs. 3.28 lakhs.
The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/04/2025. (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11/04/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(