ACIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MILIND V DESHMUKH, NAVI MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the MIDC plot, affirming the reduction in addition. Regarding the cash credit, the Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus by providing necessary details, and since the Assessing Officer made no adverse comments after verification, the deletion of addition was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order reducing an addition for unexplained investment in an MIDC plot and deleting an addition for unexplained cash credit. The assessee had purchased a plot in MIDC and claimed it was financed by loans, providing bank statements and loan agreements.
What were the issues?
Whether the reduction in addition for unexplained investment in an MIDC plot by the CIT(A) was justified, and whether the deletion of addition for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was correct.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ramit Kochar
सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 28/12/2016 23/01/2017 आदेश क� तार�ख /Date of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/03/2012 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The first ground raised pertains to reducing the addition made in the assessment order as unexplained investment in MIDC plot from Rs.97,51,641/- to Rs.2,28,511/-.
2. During hearing of this appeal, the ld. DR, Shri T. A. Khan, defended the addition made in the assessment order by advancing arguments which is identical to the ground raised. On the other hand, Shri Devendra Jain, ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee purchased a plot in MIDC for Rs.97,51,641/-. As per the Revenue, this plot was not mentioned in the fixed assets of the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the details of purchases of immovable/movable properties along with supporting evidence. As per the Revenue, no such details were furnished, therefore, the amount of Rs.97,51,641/- was treated as investment made out of undisclosed sources and added to the total income. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee explained that the plot in MIDC was purchased from loans taken from Domvibali Nagari Sahkari Bank, MIDC Branch, Airoli, An agreement was entered into on 12/10/2006 by paying lease premium paid to MIDC. The assessee also submitted the copy of the account, which appears in the aforementioned bank proof of payment of tax, wherein, the amount of Rs. 1,48,107/- was paid prior to taking of allotment of plot. It is also noticed that the fixed assets/plot was purchased from MIDC for Rs.89 lakh and stamp duty of Rs.6,23,030/- was paid for the lease dated 28/10/2006 together with the stamp of Rs.100 totaling Rs.95,23,130/- against the fixed assets reflected at Rs.97,51,641/-. The differential amount of Rs.2,28,511/-(Rs.97,51,641 - 95,23,130). Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). His stand is affirmed.
3. The next ground pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.8,27,500/- added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. DR defended the addition, whereas, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. We find that the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee accepted fresh loans amounting to Rs.8,23,500/- from three parties. The addition was made on the ground, the assessee did not furnished evidence/confirmation from the parties. However, the assessee filed the necessary details/evidences before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) with respect to the genuineness of the transaction and these documents were sent to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the genuineness of the claim. No adverse comment was made by the Assessing Officer. There is a direction by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and genuineness of the amounts. The onus laid upon the assessee was duly discharged but the ld. Assessing Officer did not furnish the adverse comments with respect to the claim of the assessee, thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives of both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28/12/2016. Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramit Kochar) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 23/01/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S //.�न.स. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026