IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA No. 3915/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) Akshaya Ashok Ghole

6th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Room No. Room No. 303, B Wing, 23, B wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Road Vs. Shrikrishna Darshan, Behind No. 16Z, Thane (W) Mayuresh Park Kharegaon Kalwa Mumbai-400 604. (West), Thane - 400605.

PAN NO. AHBPG2064N Appellant Respondent CO No. 98/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Akshaya Ashok Ghole Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)

Room No. 303, B Wing, Shrikrishna 6^th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Room Darshan, Behind Mayuresh Park Vs. No. 23, B wing, Wagle Indl.

Kharegaon Kalwa (West), Estate, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W)

Thane - 400605. Mumbai-400 604.

PAN NO. AHBPG2064N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Keyur Hindocha Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2025 ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

21.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) –

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2021-22.

2. In the above cited appeal, the Revenue has taken the following grounds :

“a. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidences in respect of investment in immovable properties as well as on the issue of cash deposits made during the year.

b. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that the contentions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings were different from those which were made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. c. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the basis of the submissions and supporting evidences, which were made for the first time during the appellate proceedings and were in the nature of additional evidences, without allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences as per Rule 46A(3)

of the L.T. Rules 1962.

d. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary.”

3. The assessee has filed a cross objection and these cross objections is basically supporting the CIT(A) order and her written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A).

4. As the issues are common, the appeal of department and cross objection of assessee are clubbed and a common order is passed there is delay of less than 1 month by both parties and after hearing the reasons for delay the same is hereby condoned and the case is adjudicated on merits. The facts of the case are as follows :

a) The Ld. AO issued 6 hearing notices, and there is response to only one notice, as observed from page 2 of assessment order and on 15/12/2022, the assessee has submitted documents relating to housing loan sanction letter, copy of will of mother-in-

law, copy of passbook of her husband etc.

b) The first addition made is with respect to deposits made by appellant into the bank account of GP Parekh Sahakari Bank to the extent of Rs. 59,29,000/- including cash of Rs. 37,93,000/-. As the appellant didn’t give proper explanation with respect to these deposits, addition of Rs. 59,29,000/- was made u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of IT Act, as unexplained money.

c) The second addition made by Ld. AO is with respect to the unexplained investment u/s. 69 of IT Act r.w.s. 115BBE. Out of the total investment of Rs. 2.53 Cr. while purchasing the flat, the Ld. AO held that the appellant couldn’t explain the source of investment to the extent of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- and hence added. The major amounts where Ld. AO was not satisfied and added are bank