IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2993, 2994 & 4342/M/2025 Assessment Years:

2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 DCIT CC 8(2), P Vijaykumar & CO, Room no. 658, 1-B, Panchratna Bldg, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai, M K Road, Maharashtra – 400004 Mumbai-400020 PAN no: AATFP 6196 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, Ld. CA Revenue by : Mr. R A Dyani, Ld. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the orders dated 25-02-2025 {for the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 cases} and 15-04-2025 {for the AY 2020-21 case}, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.

2. As these appeals under consideration are based on the same search and seizure action carried out under Section 132 of the Act on dated 18.10.2019 at the business premises of Assessee and having involved almost identical issues, therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order.

3. In these cases various issues involved, such as recovery of cash from the business premises of the Assessee during search and seizure operation, bank credits entries, loan entries in books of account and introduction of capital by the partners etc. on which the additions were made by the AO, however deleted by the Ld. Commissioner, to the extent as challenged in these appeals and therefore the parties argued the appeals simultaneously, which we will deal with, in the relevant parts of adjudication of the issues involved.

4. The Ld. CIT DR, Mr. R A Dyani, in support of the instant appeals, argued that there had been complete non-compliance by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings, as the Assessee had not only failed to file the relevant details and documents but had also failed to file its return of income in response to notice issued under Section 153A, and therefore, the best judgment assessments framed under Section 144 by the AO being fully justified, are liable to be restored. It was further contended that the Assessee had failed to discharge the initial burden cast under Section 68 of the Act during the assessment stage and also failed to properly explain the credit entries appearing in its bank accounts.

4.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner had wrongly admitted the additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as despite being afforded sufficient opportunities, the Assessee failed to produce the relevant evidences before the Assessing Officer.

4.2 With regard to cash deposits, the Ld. DR argued that the Assessee had failed to furnish party-wise details of commission income and therefore, the explanation offered was not verifiable and could not be regarded as reliable. Further, the Assessee had failed to explain the source of such cash during the search as well as in subsequent proceedings, and the statements recorded did not satisfactorily establish ownership or source; therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was fully justified and deserves to be restored.

4.3 In respect of capital introduced by partners, the Ld. DR contended that the Assessee had failed to explain the exact source of funds in the hands of the partners and therefore, the doubts raised regarding creditworthiness and genuineness were justified.

4.4 With regard to unsecured loans, the Ld. DR submitted that the transactions were rightly doubted due to absence of loan agreements and lack of clarity regarding the purpose and terms of the loans, and hence the same were liable to be treated as non-

genuine.

4.5 With regard to large loa