Skip to main content

Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor Vs. Income Tax Officer

Case No: ITA No.3589/Mum/2025
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Mumbai
Date: 1/30/2026

Parties Involved

AppellantMr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor
RespondentIncome Tax Officer

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.13,07,650/-. His case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of large Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) on sale of property and huge cash deposits in a savings bank account. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) passed an assessment order determining the total income at Rs.13,07,650/-. Subsequently, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. PCIT) set aside the original assessment order to conduct further enquiry into the claim of LTCG and cash deposits. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had sold immovable property with a capital gain of Rs.37,26,701/- and another property with a capital loss of Rs.1,27,91,821/-. The Ld. AO calculated the net LTCG amounting to Rs.36,35,520/- and issued a show cause notice along with a draft assessment order by making an addition of Rs.36,35,520/- towards the LTCG. The assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 54 of the Act but did not claim the same in his original return of income, hence the Ld. AO rejected the deduction. With regard to the cash deposits, the Ld. AO issued a notice to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee submitted that the source for the remaining cash deposit was on account of agricultural income, tuition income earned by the assessee’s wife, and cash withdrawal from an earlier period. However, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee could not file any documentary evidences in supp

Decision in favour of

Assessee

Legal Issues

  • 1. Whether the addition of Rs.36,35,520/- for long term capital gain is justified and whether the deduction under section 54 should be allowed.
  • 2. Whether the addition of Rs.13,84,112/- as unexplained money is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

2 precedents cited in this judgement.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning