MUKESH GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1. THANE, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a mere employee with meager salary, could not have made the unexplained payments. Therefore, such additions should be made in the hands of the employer, Mr. PAK, unless the Assessing Officer can establish a direct link to the assessee.
What were the facts?
During a search, a large sum of cash was found at the assessee's residence. The assessee, an employee of M/s. Unique Finance, claimed the cash was given by his employer, Mr. PAK. Further searches at the business premises also revealed cash and documents.
What were the issues?
Whether unexplained cash found and payments made by an employee should be added in the hands of the employee or the employer. The validity of additions made based on seized documents and special audit reports.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 142(2A),Section 153A,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 16(1),Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
These appeals are filed by the assessee against common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11, [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.02.2022 for the A.Ys.2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, passed u/s. 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”).
Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No.883/MUM/2022 for Assessment Year 2005-06 as a lead case.
Brief facts of the case are, during the course of ac
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026