SANTOSH BHAIRU BHILARE,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Accordingly, in the facts and the circumstances of the present case, addition of Rs.1,17,71,000/- made by the ld. AO under s. 69A of the Act is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Bhairu Bhilare Assessing Officer, 10/60 Kamathipura, Mumbai 5Th Lane, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai – 400008 (Pan: Aivpb3382M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vinay Chopda, Ca Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065661493(1), Dated 14.06.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ward 20(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “The Learned Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Estimating The Income Of Rs. 1,17,71,000/- As Part Of The Total Income Of The Appellant For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Total Assessed Income Has Been Taxed Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act At A Rate Of 60% & Penalty Proceedings Have Been Initiated Under Section 271Aac In Respect Of The Alleged Unexplained Income. The Appellant Has Provided Sufficient Evidence To Substantiate The Source Of These Cash Deposits, Including:

demonetization period. He thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that assessee is not willing to cooperate with the appellate authority and thus, sustained the addition so made by ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that assessee is a distributor for Amul milk, carrying

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization to the 701 parties which is not believable. In our view, the fact remains that assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling gold jewelleries. The possible method of conversion of currencies by buying the gold and gold jewels cannot be denied. The assessee has demonstrated that it has sold the gold/jewellery during this period. The revenue

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization to the 701 parties which is not believable. In our view, the fact remains that assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling gold jewelleries. The possible method of conversion of currencies by buying the gold and gold jewels cannot be denied. The assessee has demonstrated that it has sold the gold/jewellery during this period. The revenue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

demonetization period to its group entities. Whereas the A.O of the view that the actual cash sales could not be properly substantiated by the assesee with evidences. further the A.O has rejected the books of accounts and made addition as unexplained cash credits U/sec68 of the Act of Rs.5,55,30,00/-. ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

demonetization period to its group entities. Whereas the A.O of the view that the actual cash sales could not be properly substantiated by the assesee with evidences. further the A.O has rejected the books of accounts and made addition as unexplained cash credits U/sec68 of the Act of Rs.5,55,30,00/-. ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DALICHAND KAPURCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito – 12(2)(1), Mumbai Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited Vs Shop No. 50/51, Gulab Baug, M.G. Road, Opp Railway Station, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan; Aaacd 8748 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer agent for RBI registered Money Exchanger. Appellant filed its return of income on 24.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 11,81,740/-. Thereafter, the case of the appellant selected under scrutiny and accordingly, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. In response to the same, the appellant filed return of income on 31.05.2021 declaring

VASANT NIVRUTTI ZIMUR,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-17(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Ito, Ward – 17(2)(4) Vasant Nivrutti Zimur, Room No. 112, 1St A 401, Osho Siddharth Floor, Kautilya Osho Dhara Residency, Bhavan, Bkc, Godrej Hill Road, Bandra Khandakpada, Kalyan West 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aagpz4209C (Applicant) (Respondent) Ito, Ward – 28(3)(1) Vs. Vasant Nivrutti Zimur, 316, 3Rd Floor, No.6, A 401, Osho Siddharth Vashi Rlw Stn Complex, Osho Dhara Residency, Vashi, Mumbai - 400703 Godrej Hill Road, Khandakpada, Kalyan West - 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aagpz4209C (Applicant) (Respondent)

transferred to the account of Mr Atul Bora and Mr Dhaval Shah and the addition of Rs.55 lakhs had already been made in the assessment order passed in the case of Mr Atul Bora. In this way, when once the identity of the main person is established and the addition of transactions made in bank account of assessee‘s proprietary

M/S. SHRI GAMI INFOTECH PVT. LTED.,VASHI vs. DCIT- 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price. Hence obviously this income would remain only in the hands of the assessee in the form of cash. There is no evidence brought on record by the revenue that this income was not available in the form of cash balance with the assessee in the instant case. 3.8. Further we find that the assessee also declared