PAYAL HARSHANG SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO( INT TAXATION) WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, capital gains and other sources. She has filed her return declaring a total income of Rs. 57,63,770/- on 22.06.2022 for the AY 2022-23. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 71,36,780/- after making an addition of Rs. 13,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act after taking approval of the Ld. DRP. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The sole substantive issue involved in this case is the addition made u/s 69A of the Act in respect of the amounts received by the assessee from close relatives during the year which were treated as unexplained. 5. The assessee has submitted the following breakups with regard to the amounts received during the year: Sr. No Name Amount Relationship a. Harshang Shah 5,13,000 Husband b. Kian Shah 71,000 Son c. Harshang Shah 7,00,000 HUF d. Nitin Shah 1,47,000 Father-in-law

During the course of proceedings before Ld. DRP, the assessee had filed confirmations, copies of bank statements and other relevant details to establish the genuineness of these credits shown in her bank account. However, Ld. DRP accepted her explanation only with regard to Rs. 71,000/- received from Shri Kian Shah (son) and directed that the balance amount of Rs. 13,60,000/- should be treated as unexplained receipts u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that during the course of remand proceedings, all the requisite details were submitted before the Ld. AO. These were largely accepted by the Ld. AO in his remand report submitted to the DRP. However, in its final direction Ld. DRP only allowed relief to the assessee with regard to Rs. 71,000/- received from her son Shri Kain Shah and the remaining amounts were treated as unexplained. Ld. AR has, further, submitted a paper book containing copies of documents furnished before the Ld. AO as well as Ld. DRP and argued that the onus on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transactions and their creditworthiness has been fully discharged. He, accordingly, argued for the deletion of the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has strongly defended the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that the addition made by the Ld. AO should be upheld as the assessee has been unable to establish the genuineness of these transactions.

Thus, it is clear that in respect of all the three transactions, the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned entities have been established. It is also to be noted that all the transactions have been made with close family members through banking channels. 9. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus to establish the key ingredients viz. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders, in respect of these credits. Since all three entities are independently assessed to income tax, addition, if any, could only be considered in their individual hands. Accordingly, we hold that the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 13,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act in respect of the above credits in the hands of the assessee was not at all justified and is, therefore, directed to be deleted. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2025. BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यातयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.