RAJENDRA P SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6545/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, holding that the assessee failed to disclose a complete trail of share transactions and that the evidence was not satisfactory. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished complete details of investment sources, including bank statements and purchase bills through well-known brokers.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under section 147 based on information about trading in penny stocks. The assessee had not filed a return for AY 2012-13 but later filed one declaring income of Rs. 1,48,140. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 42,60,406/- as unexplained investment for purchasing shares of Mind Vision Capital Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained investment in shares is justified when the assessee has provided evidence of the source of investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69,Section 131,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Rajendra P. Shah, ITO, Ward-24(3)(5), Mumbai 402, Anand Enclave CHS, TPS 3, 11th Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Road, Santacruz (East), Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400055. [PAN No. AYDPS7704A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by Shri Rajesh Gupte, Advocate Revenue by Shri Laxmi Kant, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeal 14.10.2025 Date of hearing 27.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.02.2026

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld.

CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Agra dated 30.09.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.)

2012-13.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO and adding a sum of Rs. 42,60,406/- paid towards service tax on rent.

2.

The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the details and submissions submitted by the assessee and treated the details submitted as incomplete along with the appeal memo and confirmed the additions made by the AO in the impugned assessment order.”

2

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →