AKSHAY KUMAR SAXENA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
10.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – 58, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee, which were revised through letter dated 10.10.2024, are reproduced as under:

A. Ground N
1) The Asses
31.03.2021
the service
Finance Act, been introd
01/04/2021
mentioned in 1961 the Is regime on 01
B. Ground N
1) We would purchase fla
55,48,000/-
20/12/2012
have paid c purchasing
Assessee to purchased of and Club cha in FY 2017-1
2) Unexplain our case, we the nature of with bank s unexplained income.
2. Briefly stated, fa its original return of at Rs.2,500/-. The r the Income-tax Act
Subsequently, info
Commissioner of In during the course of Aks
ITA N

No-1: - ssing officer has issued notice u/s 1
which is uploaded on portal on 01/
of Notice considered as 01/04/20
,2021, The New Provision of Reasse duced in FY 2021-22 which eff
1. So, as per the consideration n Section 148A/149/151 of the Inco ssuance of the Notice u/s148 und
1/04/2021 should not prevail.
No-2: - d like to inform your honor that, Ap at in FY 2012-13 for the sale conside and Our Sale Agreement are regist
2. As per Ld. Assessing Officer obs cash over and above the sale cons the flat. The Cash payment wa o Bhagwati Developers after 5 yea of Flat for parking and installation of g arges, which are related to repairs &
18. ned Money: Section 69A of Income Tax e would like to inform you that, we ha of expense and the source of cash pa tatements. Hence, concern matter in . So, it is Unjustifiable to Add the sam facts of the case are that the as f income on 30.07.2013 declari return of income was processed
, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) o ormation was received fro ncome-tax, Central Circle (3), search/survey action conducte shay Kumar Saxena
2
No. 946/MUM/2024
148 on dated
04/2021) So 021. As per essment has ffective from of provision ome Tax Act, er the older ppellant has eration of Rs.
ter on dated servation, we sideration for as made by rs since the grills, society maintenance x act, 1961 In ave explained ayment along this no more me in the total sessee had filed ing total income d u/s 143(1) of on 14.12.2013. m the Asst.
, Mumbai that ed in the case of M/s Bhagwati Deve material was seized w flat viz A-1102, Sky O and cash of Rs.4,99
value. Accordingly, th that income escaped
Act. The Assessing dated 25/05/2022 h was seized in search contended that entir his bank account. T
AO and he made the u/s 147 dated 25.05
upheld the addition o
“6.2 The ass has mention after the pu and society maintenance cash payme bank accoun his mother a 6.3 Order of been exami
Bhagavati D assessee ha which show
Rs.60,47,52
Oasis. Furth of the develo
Aks
ITA N elopers on 15.10.2018, certain which reflected that assessee h
Oasis for an agreement value of ,525/- was paid on and above he Assessing Officer recorded r d assessment and issued notice
Officer on page 6 of the reas has reproduced the relevant d h of M/s Bhagwati Developers e money for acquisition of flat he contention of the assessee addition for Rs.4,99,525/- in t
5.2022. On further appeal, the observing as under:
sessee during the course of appellate ned that he had made cash payment t rchase of flat for parking and install and club charges which are related t e in F.Y.2017-18. The assessee furthe ent was made after cash withdraw nt of the assessee and also from cas and grandmother.
of the AO and submission of the as ined. During the course of search
Developers and its group concerns fro ad purchased a flat, the documents w that the assessee had paid an 5/- against the purchase of flat no. A her, statement of Kulin Shantilal Voha opers was recorded during the search shay Kumar Saxena
3
No. 946/MUM/2024
n incriminating had purchased a f Rs.55,48,000/- e the agreement eason to believe u/s 148 of the ssessment order document which s. The assessee was paid out of was rejected by he order passed
Ld. CIT(A) also e proceedings to the builder lation of grill to repair and er stated that wal from the sh in hand of ssessee have h action on om which the were seized n amount of -1102 in Sky a, key person h action u/s.

132(4) of the Developers against the assessment cash payme entries mad seized docum assessee ha made cash installation related to rep
6.4 However as the seize of the flat these charge club charges per agreeme above the ag assessee h received from him against
6.5 The asse the case of However the the assesse
4,99,525/- p
6.6 In view made by the Bhagavati D value towar unexplained
3. Before us, the notice issued u/s 14
on merit.
Aks
ITA N e Act wherein he had admitted that had received on money from var sale of flats. The assessee, during t proceedings has mentioned he has n ent to the builder and he was not de in respect of purchase of flat refl ment. Now, before the appellate proc as come out with a totally new theory payment after the purchase of flat of grills, society and club charges pair and maintenance in F.Y.2017-18. r, the contention of the assessee is w d document has clearly mentioned th at Rs.60,47,525/- which has alrea es, i.e.parking, installation of grills, s and the assessee has paid Rs.55, ent value and Rs.4,99,525/-paid in ca greement value in A.Y.2013-14 only.
e same is not applicable to the facts of ee could not explain the source of paid to the builder in A.Y.2013-14. of the above facts, an addition of R e AO on account of cash payment m
Developers Pvt. Ltd. over and above th rds the purchase of flat u/s.69A of money has been confirmed.”
assessee has challenged the 48 of the Act and also challeng shay Kumar Saxena
4
No. 946/MUM/2024
the Bhagvati rious clients the course of not made any party to the flected in the ceedings, the y that he has for parking, s which are .
without merit hat the value ady included society and ,48,000/- as ash over and Further, the g documents ent made by 7-18. TAT, Delhi in 9/Del/2020).
f the case as cash of Rs.
Rs.4,99,525/- made to M/s.
he agreement f the Act as validity of the ged the addition

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Aks
ITA N already allowed the appeal of t o. 1 challenging the validity of th dingly rendered academic. There he same at this stage.
he appeal of the assessee is allow ced in the open Court on 30/0
/- AR SINGH)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu shay Kumar Saxena
6
No. 946/MUM/2024
the assessee on he reassessment efore, we are not wed.
01/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai