ARVIND BHAGUJI KANGANE,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4158/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their primary onus by furnishing sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the LTCG. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments that held that in the absence of specific adverse material against the assessee or their broker regarding price manipulation, capital gains cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of shares of Sanasa Tech Fab Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire sale consideration as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing the company's poor financials and artificial price rigging. The assessee had provided documentary evidence like contract notes, bank statements, and demat statements.

What were the issues?

Whether the sale consideration of shares, claimed as LTCG, can be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 when the assessee has provided documentary evidence and there is no specific allegation of price rigging against the assessee or their broker. Also, the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Arvind Bhanguji Kangane DCIT, Circle – 27(1), Mumbai Shreyas Building, 11th Road, Plot No. 4th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Vs 553, Flat No. 901, 9th Floor, Opp. Railway Station Building, Navi Heritage Pride Building, Chembur, Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400026. [PAN: AFYPK1856R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CA Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Institution 19.06.2025 Date of hearing 12.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2026

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) / NFAC

dated 11.06.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised following

grounds of appeal:

“1.0On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in mechanical manner, in absence of new tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income;

2.

0 On facts and

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →