Dismissal of appeal filed by the revenue allowance of cross-objection filed by assessee.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

I.T.A. No.3763 & 3764/Mum/2019
Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

ACIT 18(3)
R. No.609, 6th Floor, Earnest
House, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021.

Vs.

Vikas J. Solanki
101/102 D Plaza 3rd Agiary
Lane Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai400003.

C. O. Nos. 54 & 55/Mum/2020
(Arising out of I.T.A. Nos.3764/Mum/2019 & 3763/Mum/2019)

Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

Vikas J. Solanki
101/102 D Plaza 3rd Agiary
Lane Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai400003.
PAN/GIR No. : AAEPS4197A
Appellant)

Vs.

ACIT 18(3)
R. No.609, 6th Floor, Earnest
House, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021.
Respondent)

Revenue by: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Assessee by: Shri Suchek Achanliya (AR)

Date of Hearing: 14/01/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 11/02/2021

 O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

The revenue as well as assessee have filed the above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objection against the order dated 29.03.2019 passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -29, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13. ITA. NO.3763/Mum/2019 & C.O. NO. 55/Mum/2020

2. The revenue has filed the appeal bearing ITA. No.3763/Mum/2019 and the assessee has filed the cross-objection bearing no. 55/Mum/2020against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-29, Mumbairelevant to the A.Y. 2011-12. Since the common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, the appeal as well as cross-objection is being taken up together for adjudication for the sake of convenience.

3. The revenue has raised the following grounds: -

"1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) justified in restricting the disallowanceto 4% of the alleged purchases of Rs.3,50,49,136/- againstthe addition of Rs.3,50,49,136/- made by the AO onaccount of Unexplained investment u/s 69C of the IT Act.1961. ignoring the fact that credible information was received from the office of Director General of Income Tax(Investigation), Mumbai in respect of Search & Seizureaction u/s 132 of the IT Act. 1961 conducted on Shri Jain Group?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Id. CIT(A) justified in restricting the disallowanceto 4% of the alleged purchases of Rs.3,50,49,136/-.ignoring the fact that, during the assessment proceedings,the assessee could not substantiate the transactions made with the concerns of Shri Jain Group?

To know more in details find the attachment file