Bipin Futarmal Jain vs. DCIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Bipin Futarmal Jain, filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 13,75,820/-. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on the Rubberwala Group, revealing that the assessee had purchased a shop in Platinum Mall Building, Girgaon, Mumbai, paying Rs. 82,36,800/- in cash. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 153C of the Act and made additions treating Rs. 6,00,000/-, Rs. 44,43,300/-, and Rs. 37,93,500/- as unaccounted/unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), which was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction.
• 2. Whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice.
• 3. Whether the assessment u/s 153 is bad in law and without jurisdiction.
• 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- as alleged unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is valid.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Kulsum Aaqib Memon vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• Huwaida Iqbal Sayed vs DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

• Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai-400051

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20Allowed

• Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai-400051

• Arvind Khetaram Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18 & 2018-19Allowed

• Mall Hotel Limited vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2009-10Partly Allowed