CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi

Latif Ebrahim Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Latif Ebrahim Patel Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1) बिधम/ 202, 3, Sarkar Tower, Mumbai Mazagaon, Vs. Mumbai-400010 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Agqpp1237N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…justified in the conclusions at which it arrived.” We further find that the reliance placed by the ld. A.R before us on the order of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, viz. ITAT, Mumbai bench „B‟ in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. I.T.O 23(2)(3), Mumbai (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mum) and the order of a “SMC” bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Smt. Mansi Mahindra Pitkar Vs. I.T.O 1(2), Thane (2016) 160 ITD 605 (Mum) to support her contention that the cash deposits in the bank account cannot be construed as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 in a case where the assessee is not maintaining any b…