ITO-27(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. SURUCHI PURWAR, MUMBAI

ITA 2451/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue Department against the decision of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained investment in property by the Assessee, Mrs. Suruchi Purwar, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The AO had initially reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-filing of the return by the Assessee and flagged financial transactions indicating substantial investments. The Assessee, in response to the AO's notices, provided detailed explanations and documents showing that her husband had made the property payments. The Ld. Commissioner accepted these explanations, leading to the deletion of the addition, which was contested by the Revenue Department on grounds of insufficient evidence from the Assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781402 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: GANESH RAJGOPALAN; LD.; KIRTHIVASAN; LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; TDS; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 148; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2451/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer- 27(3)(1), 422, 4th Floor, VRSCCL, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Mumbai – 400 073 Vs. Mrs. Suruchi Purwar, 1904, Jasmine Neelkanth Garden, Opposite Jain Temple, Govandi (E), Mumbai – 400 088 PAN: BIAPP2682N CO No.106/M/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.2451/M/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Suruchi Purwar, 1904, Jasmine Neelkanth Garden, Opposite Jain Temple, Govandi (E), Mumbai – 400 088 PAN: BIAPP2682N Vs. Income Tax Officer- 27(3)(1), 422, 4th Floor, VRSCCL, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Mumbai – 400 073 Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ld. A.R. & Shri Kirthivasan, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2451/M/2025 Mrs. Suruchi Purwar 2 Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal by the Revenue Department and the Cross objection by the Assessee have been preferred against the order dated 10.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Coming to ITA No.2451/M/2025, we observe that an information was flagged on NMS module of insight portal to the effect that the Assessee has entered into following financial transactions during the Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19: Information Description Source Amount (Rs.) TDS Statement – Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ANUSHAKTI NAGAR 33,083/- Purchase by any person of immovable property JOINT SUB REGISTRAR (MSD) BORIVALI 2 2,48,70,059/- TDS Statement - Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE MUMBAI CITY 1,04,432/- TDS Statement – Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) HDFC BANK LIMITED 1,29,774/- TOTAL 2,51,37,348/- 3. On verifying such information on e-filing portal, the Assessing Officer (AO) had observed that the Assessee has not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19, hence no assessment was made. As the Assessee did not file income tax return for the year under consideration, it is established that the amount of 2,51,37,348/- has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid and it is clear that the source of above mentioned transactions remained unexplained. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2451/M/2025 Mrs. Suruchi Purwar 3 Consequently, the AO while recording the reasons for reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act, reopened the case by issuing a notice dated 30.03.2022 u/s 148 of the Act. 4. The Assessee in response, filed her return of income on dated 26.05.2022 admitting income of Rs.2,67,290/- under “income from other sources”. 5. Thereafter, various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee replied and claimed that the purchase of property for an amount of Rs.2,48,70,059/- is in the joint name of herself and her husband Shri Suyash Kumar Purwar and all the payments were made by her husband only. 6. The AO in order to verify aforesaid claim of the Assesses, show caused the Assessee by issuing a notice dated 03.03.2023 “as to why the assessment should not be completed based on the details available with the Department”. As per AO the Assessee did not furnish any payment details to substantiate her claim relating to her payment made by her husband and therefore, he by holding “that in the absence of evidences to substantiate the payment, it is proposed to add Rs.1,24,35,029.50 (50% of Rs.2,48,70,059.00) as unaccounted investment in her hand for the A.Y. 2018- 19”, ultimately made the addition of Rs.1,24,35,029.50 being un-explained investment in purchase of property u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and at the outset, has submitted/contended that though she has filed the replies before the AO, however he considered none. The Assessee also filed various submissions with regard to the immovable property in question and also provided the details of payment made to the builder and source of payment, which read as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2451/M/2025 Mrs. Suruchi Purwar 4 Date of payment debit in Bank Amount Rs. Paid by Source 31.03.2016 2,08,700 Suyash Purwar (spouse) Standard Chartered Bank A/c No. 22310244699; Paid from salaries reed from Halliburton 02.05.2016 23,86,492 Suyash Purwar Standard Chartered Bank A/c No.22310244699; Paid from salaries 22310 recd from Halliburton/savings 03.06.2016 25,69,240 Suyash Purwar (spouse) Standard Chartered Bank A/c No.22310244699; Paid from salaries recd from Halliburton/savings 18.04.2017 13,25,450 Suyash Purwar (spouse) Standard Chartered Bank A/c No.22310244699; Paid from salaries recd from Halliburton/savings 1,62,36,538 SBI Housing Loan Statement and SBI Sanction Letter Attached 23,63,462 Balance Payable to Builder Total 2,50,89,882 5 8. The Assessee has further claimed that she had also attached the copy of ITR of her husband Shri Suyash Kumar Purwar, bank statement of her husband showing the payments made, the sanction letter of SBI and the loan statements, copies of the cheques and copy of sale deed. 9. The Ld. Commissioner by considering the details of payment made to the builder and source of the payment and the relevant documents pertaining to the ITR, bank statement, sanction letter, loan statements, copy of cheques pertaining to the Assessee’s husband and copy of the sale deed, ultimately construed that the Assessee has been able to explain the source of investment in the immovable property and therefore deleted the addition under consideration. 10. The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, challenged the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner mainly on the reason that the burden lies on the Assessee to prove the source of funds on any investment. The Assessee’s mere assumption that her husband paid for the property Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2451/M/2025 Mrs. Suruchi Purwar 5 without corroborating any evidence, does not satisfy this burden and therefore the addition made by the AO, is liable to be restored. 11. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances, decisions of the authorities below and the rival contentions raised by the parties. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner by filling the relevant details and documents, such as Assessee’s copy of the sale deed, Assessee’s husband’s ITR, bank statement, loan sanction letter, loan statements, copy of cheques pertaining to the Assessee’s husband, duly demonstrated the purchase of property and payments thereof made by Assessee’s husband and thus it cannot be said that the Assessee has not discharged her onus casted in law. And therefore the Ld. Commissioner by considering the above details and documents filed by the Assessee, as referred to above and by taking cognizance of the fact that the Assessee’s husband has paid the entire amount and the Assessee has been able to explain the source of investment in the immovable property, ultimately deleted the addition under consideration. Even otherwise the details of payments and documents qua property payment thereof are loud and clear that though the Assessee’s husband had purchased the property jointly but admittedly made the payments of property from his own sources and taking loan etc.. Thus, in our considered view, the Ld. Commissioner has not committed any error in deleting the addition and therefore there is no perversity, impropriety and/or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 12. Coming to the grounds raised in Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, we observe that more or less the same are against the assessment order, which has already been annulled by deleting the addition by the Ld. Commissioner, vide impugned order, which is also affirmed by us in the Revenue’s appeal. Thus, the CO filed by the Assessee has become infructuous. Consequently, the same is dismissed being infructuous. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2451/M/2025 Mrs. Suruchi Purwar 6 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "