DEEPTI SHREYAS TALPADE,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(5) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 272/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Deepti Shreyas Talpade against the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 70,00,000 to the assessee's income, alleging that this amount was paid in cash for the purchase of a residential flat, based on information from a search operation on the Cosmos group. The assessee contested this, providing evidence that the property was purchased for Rs. 29,50,000 through cheque, and that the addition was also made in her spouse's case, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the lack of substantial evidence for the cash payment allegation and the procedural lapses in the reassessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785854 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAN KOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUPENDRA SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; Opportunity of cross examination; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 148; 143(3); 271(1)(c); 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.272/MUM/2025 (A.Y.2011-12) Deepti Shreyas Talpade 701, 7th Floor, DLH Enclave, 90’ Wide DP Road, Near Windmere Building, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(5) Room No. 702, 7th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AEHPT6420L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah & Shri Jitesh Agrawal Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR Date of Hearing 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 20.02.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 272/mum/2025. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: “1) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in passing the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s147 which is bad in law a) merely on the basis of information received from the DDIT(Inv) Unit 1(4) of who has conducted search operation on Cosmos group and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction b) merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures and without any material on record c) Relying on third party statements and without corroborating evidence d) without providing the statements recorded on the basis of which the additions are ame and without giving the appellant an opportunity of cross examination e) Without providing reasons recorded for reopening f) Without granting an opportunity of being heard 2) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- u/s 69B r.wis 115BBE thereby wrongly holding that the Appellant has made cash payments towards the purchase of residential flat at Cosmos Regency, Flat No. 6D Astra Spring Bella, Cosmos Spring of Cosmos Group on the information received from Investigation unit Addl DIT(Inv) Unit-1, Mumbai. a) Without appreciating the fact that the said property mentioned in the notice is registered under the Appellant's name vide agreement dated 06-08- 2009 having an agreement value of Rs. 29,50,000/- which is paid through cheque and is already disclosed in her books of accounts b) Thereby disregarding the fact that the agreement value is Rs. 29,50,000/- and therefore the question of payment on money of Rs. 70,00,000/- does not arise. c) Even though the Appellant has denied any cash payments made towards the purchase of property vide her submission dated 28.12.2018. d) Thereby disregarding the fact that the same addition is already made in her spouse case on substantive basis and therefore leads to double addition e) Without giving the appellant any opportunity for cross-examination of the persons on the basis of whose statement addition is made. f) In common law parlance, an admission made by one party is evidence against the maker of the statement but not against any other party implicated by it. g) Addition made by the Ld AO is merely a borrowed satisfaction and not his own satisfaction. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 272/mum/2025. h) Without considering the various submissions made by the Appellant 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in wrongly initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax[A] erred in dismissing all the grounds of appeal on merits by overlooking the fact and legal submissions made and also without granting an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing thereby violating principles of natural justice.” 3. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal is delayed by 380 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit and application for condonation of delay on the ground that her husband was unwell and had to undergo angioplasty in December 2023. Assessee could not pay attention to the tax matters during this period being pre-occupied with husband’s healthcare and recovery. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay as the same appears to be for bonafide reasons. 4. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 03.12.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 11,50,550/-. Subsequently, information was received by the AO from the Investigation Wing relating to payment of on money by buyers of flats in the Cosmos group of companies unearthed during the course of search conducted u/s. 132 on the Cosmos group. It was seen that the assessee is one such purchaser and has purchased a flat from the group company in Bella Spring II jointly with her husband Shri. Shreyas Talpade. Based on the information regarding payment of cash of Rs. 70,00,000/- during F.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 1,00,000/- during F.Y. 2012-13 by the assessee for the purchase of flat, the case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 272/mum/2025. denied having made any cash payment for purchase of property i.e 6D, Astra, Spring Bella, Cosmos Regency. It was submitted that she had purchased the property for Rs. 29,50,000/- in her single name and the amount mentioned in the notice is also incorrect. She claimed that no addition was warranted in her hands as her name does not appear in any of the statements of the searched persons, relied upon by the AO. However, ld. AO did not accept the assessee’s contentions and made an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on protective basis u/s. 69B of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has also dismissed her contention with the following observations: “I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as submissions filed by the appellant. I find no force in the arguments taken by the appellant. The only defense of the appellant is that the addition has also been made in case of his husband. However, her name also appears in the ownership documents. Accordingly, the AO has made the addition on a protective basis. This addition is has rightly been made and if at all the same is confirmed in the hands of her husband, it would be automatically deleted in her hand. The ground of appeal no. 1 is dismissed.” Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. As has been discussed and held in the case of her husband, Shri Shreyas Talpade, the claim of the revenue that Rs. 70,00,000/- was paid in cash over and above the agreement value of Rs. 29,50,000/- is not tenable especially in view of the fact that the property measuring 710 sq ft. is located in Thane and its stamp duty valuation is merely Rs. 15,38,100/- as per copy of registration certificate filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA NO. 272/mum/2025. Further entire payment of Rs. 29,50,000/- has been made by cheque by taking bank loan and from own sources by the assessee. Accordingly, we hereby delete the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made u/s. 69B on protective basis in assessee’s hands. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 31.10.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai Date 31.10.2025 Anandi.Nambi/STENO आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. थ\b / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0011 / CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड\u001b फाईल / Guard file. स ािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "