AMIT NARAYAN KARKERA,USA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KAUTILYA BHAVAN

ITA 7350/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Narayan Karkera, a non-resident Indian employed in the USA, who appealed against an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had treated his investment in a property as unexplained and added it to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that Karkera was unaware of the new income tax portal and the need to respond to notices due to his employment in the USA. The Tribunal found merit in Karkera's argument that the investment was funded through a loan from HDFC Bank and remittances from abroad, and thus not entirely from undisclosed sources.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHALIN DIVATIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained investment; Residential status
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7350/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2017-18) Amit Narayan Karkera 501, Shivrajan Tower Building B3 Pashan, Pune-411 008 Vs. Income Tax Officer Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AKBPK6022D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Shalin Divatia Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 08/09/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 for the A.Y.2017- 18. 2. The assessee is merely aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal for being barred by limitation and on merits, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.1,43,49,885/- as unexplained investment. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7350/Mum/2025 Amit Narayan Karkera 2 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a non-resident and living in USA since 2006. The assessment order although mentions residential status which is factually incorrect. The assessee had invested in residential flat situated at Wadala and later on allotment was given on 19/01/2017 by the builder / developer Lodha. For purchase of the flat, assessee had taken a loan from HDFC Ltd., which was approved on 06/01/2017 and the loan was disbursed in 5 installments for sums aggregating to Rs.1,29,00,000/-. The information was received with risk management strategy and which was highlighted in the insight portal that the assessee had not filed income for A.Y.2017-18 and assessee had purchased an immovable property for sums aggregating to Rs.1,43,49,885/- and accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued. Since assessee was not resident of India and was employed in USA could not receive any such notice nor he was aware of any such information that notice being sent through e-mail or ITBA portal accordingly, despite issuance of several notice, assessee could not respond nor could file the return of income in response u/s.148. Accordingly, ld. AO in his exparte order has treated the entire amount of Rs.1,43,49,885/-. 4. Assessee could not seek the order in time and once he came to know about passing of such order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was delayed by 56 days. Before the ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which has been mentioned in the appellate order which is as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7350/Mum/2025 Amit Narayan Karkera 3 “The present appeal is being filed by the Applicant under section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Hon’ble Commissioner against the order dated 21st January, 2025 passed by the Ld. Assessing officer. As per the Applicant, the order dated 21st January, 2025 came to his knowledge on 5th April 2025, when he consulted CA firm, Abhishek Surana and Co. on 5th April 2025. They downloaded the copy of the subject order from the portal on the same day and provided a hard copy of the order. The appeal petition against the subject assessment order is being filed along with this application before the Learned Commissioner Appeals on 17th April, 2025. However, delay due to working in USA and not aware about New Income Tax Portal and change in Address. The delay if any, of 56 days in filing the appeal. The Applicant submits that the delay was solely due to the bona fide and genuine reasons, which were beyond the control of the Applicant and, in any case, was not due to any deliberate carelessness. There has been no such delay in past. The Applicant prays that considering the reasons as mentioned above and maintaining abundant caution, the delay, if any, in filing the appeal be condoned. The Applicant submits that no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent, if the delay is condoned, as the matter is to be finally disposed off on merits. On the other hand, the Applicant will be greatly prejudiced by the loss of the only remedy available under the statue against the order of the Ld. Assessing officer, thereby permanently shutting the door to redress its grievances. The Applicant submits that, on merits also, the Applicant has got a fairly good case to succeed. In the circumstances, the Applicant prays that the Hon’ble Commissioner may be pleased to condone the delay of 56 days Fifty-Six days in filing the appeal.” 5. Assessee has specifically stated that since he was employed in USA and was not aware that income tax portal however, ld. CIT(A) without considering such bonafide and genuine reasons had dismissed the appeal on appeal being time barred. First of all looking to the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the aforesaid application filed before the ld. CIT(A), we find that assessee being a non- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7350/Mum/2025 Amit Narayan Karkera 4 resident and staying in USA was not aware of any new income tax portal and he only came to know about the order when he consulted the CA firm who downloaded the copy from the portal and then appeal was filed. Such marginal delay deserves to be condoned, accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 6. On merits also we find that assessee is being employed in USA in L&T Infotech, USA since 23/01/2006 and he was drawing salary of $115,000/- plus other perks and benefits. For purchase of flat assessee had taken a loan from HDFC bank and approved amount of loan is Rs.1,29,00,000/- which has been reimbursed on 5 dates. These are evident from the letters, approval loan and disbursement advice, installment advise issued by the bank. Thus, the source of investment out of Rs.1,43,00,000/- was from the bank loan. The balance amount has been stated to be out of his amount sent from USA. Thus, it cannot be held that the entire investment is out of undisclosed source or remained unexplained. Although the matter should have been restored back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication in line of these documents, however, looking to the fact that these are purely documents pertaining to loan by a public limited bank and has given all the documents pertaining to such loan therefore, the ld. AO is only directed to verify these documents and grant appropriate relief, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7350/Mum/2025 Amit Narayan Karkera 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 21st January, 2026. Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 21/01/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "