SHAHANAVAJKHAN DAUDKHAN PATHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the detailed explanation for the Rs. 3,28,559/- was not provided to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,40,443/- for unexplained fixed deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,28,559/-. The assessee appealed, claiming the fixed deposits were rolled over from earlier ones and explained.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee adequately explained the source of fixed deposits to the Assessing Officer, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri 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.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
2 Shahanavajkhan Daudkhan Pathan 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.
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.
4. 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.
5. 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 Principal Over Date 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
3 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.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
