Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 3 vs Dilip B Jiwarajka

[Cites 5, Cited by 0] Bombay High Court Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 3 vs Dilip B Jiwarajka on 15 April, 2026 Author: B. P. Colabawalla Bench: B. P. Colabawalla 2026:BHC-OS:9689-DB 24-ITXA-849-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2023 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central 3 .. Appellant Versus Dilip B. Jiwarajka .. Respondent Adv. Swapna Gokhale, for the Appellant. Adv. Rajendra, for the Respondent. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: APRIL 15, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Income Tax Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 29th November 2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "ITAT") in Appeal No. 2326/Mum/2021. The Assessment Year in question is A.Y. 2015-2016. According to the Revenue, the above Appeal gives rise to the following five substantial questions of law:- "A. Whether Hon'ble ITAT erred in not considering that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of transaction of shares during the assessment proceedings? Page 1 of 4 APRIL 15, 2026 Darshan Patil 24-ITXA-849-2023.doc B. Whether Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of sale proceeds of the Scrip on which LTCG was claimed by the assessee, without appreciating the overwhelming evidence such as purchases shown to have been made of market, statement of various relevant persons admitting that these companies indulged in giving accommodation entries, abnormal rise in prices over short period, cash trails in the accounts of entry operators, etc.? C. Whether Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition, granting relief without considering the Principles laid down in the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and Durga Prasad More vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) that apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities.? D. Whether Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition, granting relief without appreciating the facts stated in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain V/s. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bom)? E. Whether Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition in respect of alleged commission/expenditure paid @ 5 to 7 % by invoking the provision of Section 69C of the Income tax Act on the non genuine sale value of shares without any cogent material on record?" 2. In the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer has made a huge addition to the income of the Respondent. This was challenged before the CIT (Appeals), who deleted the addition, and the same has been upheld by the ITAT. Page 2 of 4 APRIL 15, 2026 Darshan Patil 24-ITXA-849-2023.doc 3. Interestingly, the Respondent Assessee, as well as his brother Mr. Surendra B. Jiwarjka, were subjected to search and the Assessment Order in both these cases has been passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The present Respondent's brother, namely Surendra B. Jiwarjka, being aggrieved by the Assessment Order passed under Section 153A, approached CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) decided the matter in favour of the Respondent's brother. Being aggrieved by this, the Department preferred an Appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT also held in favour of the Respondent's brother. Not being satisfied by the order passed by the ITAT, the Department then approached this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2024. This Court dismissed the aforesaid Appeal (filed in the case of the brother of the Respondent) on the ground that it raised no substantial question of law. In fact, this Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT have, on a concurrent review of the factual material on record, held in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The findings of the fact have been concurrently recorded, and they are not based on "no evidence or on any relevant evidence having been excluded from consideration". Hence, this Court in the case of Surendra B. Jiwarjka (the brother of the Respondent) held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Page 3 of 4 APRIL 15, 2026 Darshan Patil 24-ITXA-849-2023.doc 5. It is an admitted position before us that the facts in the present case are identical to those in the case of Surendra B. Jiwarjka, save and except for the amount of addition being made. 6. Once this is the case, for the reasons stated by this Court in its decision dated 12th November 2025 in Income Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2024, we also hold that the present Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law, and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 4 of 4 APRIL 15, 2026 Darshan Patil Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/04/2026 11:17:29