INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA VALLABHJI DEDHIA, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“F” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &
SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Income Tax Officer,
Mumbai
Room No. 304, 3rd
Floor, Piramal
Chambers, Lalbaug,
Parel, Mumbai –
400 012. Vs.
Jitendra Vallabhji
Dedhia,
4, Kaushik Niwas, L.
N. Road, Matunga,
Mumbai-400 019

PAN/GIR No. AFMPD4199N
(Applicant)

(Respondent)

Revenue by Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. DR
Assessee by Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. AR

Date of Hearing
11.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement
12.03.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 08.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2012–13, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing

2
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia

Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] dated
24.12.2019. Facts of the Case
2. The assessee is an individual. The assessee filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2012–13 on 29.09.2012
declaring total income of Rs. 11,05,476/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act.
In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 09.04.2019 declaring income of Rs. 11,05,480/-.
3. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation
Wing that a search action under section 132 of the Act had been carried out in the case of M/s Evergreen Enterprises. During the course of the said search action, statements of members of the group were recorded and certain documents were seized.
According to the information received by the Assessing Officer, the said entity and its partners were engaged in arranging cash transactions and lending cash loans to various parties.
4. Based on the material found during the search proceedings and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of Shri Nilesh
Bharani, one of the partners of M/s Evergreen Enterprises, it was alleged that the assessee had advanced cash loans through the said entity. As per the information available with the Assessing
Officer, the assessee had allegedly advanced cash loans

3
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia aggregating to Rs. 46,00,000/- through Shri Nilesh Bharani to the following parties:
Sr. No.
Name of Party
Amount
1
Allwyn Electric
Rs. 20,00,000/-
2
Dr. Sadiwala Clinic
Rs. 15,00,000/-
3
M/s Fiona
Rs. 5,00,000/-
4
K.J. Shah
Rs. 1,00,000/-
5
M/s Quality Construction Co.
Rs. 5,00,000/-

Total
Rs. 46,00,000/-

4
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia

Shri Nilesh Bharani denied having received any cash loans from the assessee. According to the assessee, Shri Nilesh Bharani categorically stated that the assessee had only transacted with him through banking channels and that the name of the assessee or the partnership firm M/s Shah Petroleum Products had been used by him while lending loans from his own unaccounted funds. The assessee further submitted that the alleged amount of Rs. 46,00,000/- had also been considered in the hands of the partnership firm
M/s
Shah
Petroleum
Products by the juri ictional Assessing Officer of the firm. Therefore, it was argued that taxing the same amount in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation of the same income.
7. The assessee also contended that the provisions of section 68 of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the case as there was no cash credit found in the books of the assessee. The assessee accordingly requested that the proposed addition be dropped.
8. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the information received from the Investigation Wing along with the documents seized during the search proceedings in the case of M/s Evergreen Enterprises indicated that the assessee had advanced cash loans through Shri Nilesh Bharani. The Assessing
Officer observed that statements recorded during the search proceedings and the seized documents indicated that several persons had provided funds to Shri Nilesh Bharani who, in turn,

5
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia had advanced loans in cash to various parties. On the basis of the details available from the seized records and the information collected during investigation, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had advanced cash loans of Rs. 46,00,000/- through Shri Nilesh Bharani.
9. Since the assessee failed to produce satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the alleged cash loans, the Assessing
Officer treated the amount of Rs. 46,00,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee and added the same to the total income under section 68 of the Act.
10. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions made during the assessment proceedings. The assessee contended that there was no concrete evidence to establish that the assessee had advanced cash loans through Shri Nilesh Bharani. It was submitted that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the key persons of M/s
Evergreen Enterprises did not contain any reference to the alleged transactions involving the assessee. The assessee further submitted that during cross-examination conducted before the Assessing Officer, Shri Nilesh Bharani had categorically denied having received any cash loans from the assessee. It was argued that the addition had been made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborative evidence. It was also contended that the Assessing Officer had not discussed the objections raised by the assessee nor brought on record any material to establish that 6
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia the assessee had actually advanced cash loans of Rs.
46,00,000/-.
11. The learned CIT(A) considered the submissions made by the assessee and examined the assessment order. The learned CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had not brought on record any concrete evidence to support the allegation that the assessee had advanced cash loans through Shri Nilesh Bharani. The learned CIT(A) further observed that the statements recorded during the search proceedings did not contain any specific reference to the assessee having advanced cash loans through
M/s Evergreen Enterprises. It was also noted that the Assessing
Officer had not dealt with the objections raised by the assessee and had failed to establish the nexus between the assessee and the alleged cash transactions. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the material available on record, the learned
CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. Accordingly, the learned
CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.
46,00,000/-.Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:
1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in holding that none of the key members of M/s Evergreen Enterprises have even mentioned in the entire statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act.

7
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia

8
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia categorical findings that no material evidence had been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee had advanced cash loans through Shri Nilesh Bharani or through
M/s Evergreen Enterprises.
15. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and relied upon the findings recorded therein. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing during the course of search action carried out under section 132 in the case of M/s Evergreen Enterprises. With regard to the objection raised by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee regarding the maintainability of the appeal in view of the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular, the learned
Departmental Representative submitted that the present case falls within the exceptions provided in the said circular.
16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, the learned
Authorised Representative of the assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue in view of the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
17. From the record it is noticed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounts to Rs. 46,00,000/-, which was deleted by the learned CIT(A). The tax effect arising from the said addition, as pointed out by the learned
Authorised

9
Jitendra Vallabhji Dedhia

Representative, is Rs. 14,21,400/-. Thus, the tax effect involved in the present appeal is only Rs. 14,21,400/-.The CBDT has issued Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 prescribing the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before various appellate forums. As per the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is Rs. 60,00,000/-. The said Circular has been issued with a view to reduce litigation and to ensure that appeals are not filed by the Department in cases where the tax effect is below the prescribed threshold.
18. In the present case, the tax effect of Rs. 14,21,400/- is admittedly much below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- prescribed under the aforesaid
Circular.
The learned
Departmental Representative has submitted that the present case falls within the exceptions provided in the Circular on the ground that the addition relates to accommodation entries and organised tax evasion. However, we find that except making a general submission, the Revenue has not demonstrated with any material on record that the present case falls within any of the specific exceptions enumerated in the CBDT Circular. Merely because the information was received from the Investigation Wing in relation to search proceedings conducted in the case of M/s Evergreen
Enterprises would not automatically bring the case within the exception category contemplated under the Circular.
19. Therefore, in absence of any material to establish that the case falls within the specified exceptions, the appeal filed by the No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
20. Even otherwise, we find that the learned CIT(A) has examined the issue on merits and recorded a categorical finding that the Assessing Officer has not brought any concrete evidence on record to establish that the assessee had advanced cash loans through Shri Nilesh Bharani or through M/s Evergreen
Enterprises. We find no infirmity in the above findings recorded by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material evidence to substantiate the allegation that the assessee had advanced cash loans of Rs. 46,00,000/- through Shri Nilesh
Bharani. The deletion of the addition by the learned CIT(A) is therefore justified.
21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed both on account of low tax effect in terms of CBDT Circular No.
05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 as well as on merits.
22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2026. (SAKTIJIT DEY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 12/03/2026
Dhananjay, Sr.PS
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :