Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai
In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs
ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13
For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR
…maintained in respect of unexplained cash and there are no evidence as how the money was given from one Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar & Four Others etc. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs CIT (50 ITR 1) and held that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the benefit of the telescoping of undisclosed income from business against the cash credit due to lack of evidence that such business income was utilised in taking entry of the cash credit. 13.3 Before us also the Ld. counsel of the assessee has repeated the arguments of common pool of financial af…
