AUNALI AKBARALI RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHURCHGATE MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 18.03.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 18.12.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Aunali Akbarali Rupani 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.9,32,320/- as unexplained credit card expenses, despite detailed evidence demonstrating these were genuine business expenses with personal costs properly excluded.

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits, despite loan confirmations that established the identity and genuineness of the transactions.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on verification of the information available in i-taxnet under NMS Cycle 1 (Non-Filer) Category, the assessee had not filed its return of income for AY 2012-13. It was seen from the Individual Transaction Statement that the assessee had entered into following transactions during FY 2011-12 ie. Paid Rs.23,80,266/- against credit card bills, Share transaction of Rs.5,61,16,638/- and Receipt of Rs.63,06,484/- on which TDS u/s 194H of the Act was deducted. The assessment proceeding for was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.16,76,170/-. A notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee calling for details such as bank accounts, credit card statement, DMAT account statement details of receipt of Rs.63,06,484/- on which 194H TDS was deducted. On verification of the details filed, it was observed that the statement of credit card furnished by the assessee did not pertain to the assessee as it P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Aunali Akbarali Rupani was in the name of Sana Aunali Rupani. Further, it was noticed that as per ITS details, cash deposit of Rs.11,10,000/- was made in assessee’s account with Citi Bank, Chennai. For verification of the genuineness of cash deposits as well as credit card bill payments, notices u/s 133(6) dated 12.11.2019 were issued to Citi Bank and American Express Banking Corp seeking compliance by 15.11.2019. However, there was no compliance to the notice. From the submissions of the assessee, it was observed by the AO that she was not in possession of any substantial evidence to prove the genuineness of all above stated three transactions. However, assessee has failed to discharge the onus place on it. In the absence of justification from the assessee alongwith documentary evidences, the issues on which explanation was asked from assessee were added to the total income of the assessee.