IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3082/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Prakash Kapoorchand Deputy Commissioner of Kothari, Income-tax, 1, Osia Paradise, Central Circle 2(1), Dawood Baug Lane, Mumbai Vs.

Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 058 (PAN : AACPK5765G)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi, CA and Shri Vipul Jain, CA Revenue : Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A)–

48, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1053568384(1), dated 06.06.2023, passed against the assessment order by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai, u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 24.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai has erred in confirming order of the Assessing Officer wherein commission and brokerage income of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- offered by the appellant in the ITR under the head income from other sources, has been treated as income deemed to be income under section 69A of the Act and consequently taxed the same at higher rate of 60% us 115BBE of the Act.

Your appellant submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the deeming provisions of Section 69A of the Act are not applicable.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai failed to appreciate that appellant has not offered the income of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act also the AO has not made any separate addition under Section 69A of the Act and therefore merely re-characterization of the nature of income offered by the appellant does not attract the provisions of sections 115BBE of the Act. Your Appellant submits that treating the income of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- as income deemed to be income under section 69A r.w.s 113BBE of the Act is wholly unjustified, improper, bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai erred in not accepting the submission made by the appellant in the course of appellant proceedings that commission and brokerage income earned during the year amounting to Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was his casual and incidental income and not regular in the nature and therefore the same should have been assessed as income from other sources.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the income from other sources of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- has been offered for tax in the return of income filed u/s. 139(1) as well as u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19 and on the facts of the case does not tantamount to undisclosed income and thus the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable.”

2.1. Assessee has also raised additional grounds challenging legal issues vide application dated 21.09.2024 which are reproduced as under:

Additional Grounds:

“1.0 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the additions u/s 69A in the year under consideration as unexplained jewellery in the assessment order which is confirmed by the L.d. CIT(A).

2.0 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made in the assessment order passed by Ld. AO is bad-in-law.

3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the approval granted u/s 153D by Ld. Addl. CIT is bad in law and mechanical in nature.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is associated with real estate development activity under M/s. Swapna Developers which is a partnership firm having its business activity solely in South Goa. Assessee also runs his proprietary business under the name and style of Osia Multiplex from the