JANKI NIPUL SAVLA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 982/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Janki Nipul Savla, an NRI based in Kenya/USA, who appealed against the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which pertained to unexplained investments in mutual funds and fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 29,03,20,568. Additionally, an addition of Rs. 3,15,014 was contested regarding undisclosed income from short-term capital gains from mutual funds. The AO had issued several notices to the appellant, which went unanswered, leading to the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed these additions due to non-compliance by the appellant. The Tribunal, after reviewing the documents submitted at the hearing, decided to remit the case back to the AO for a detailed examination, providing the appellant another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668722 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT VORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Capital Gains
• Section: 144; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “I” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 982/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2022-23) Janki Nipul Savla PO Box No. 33019-00600 Nairobi, Kenya C/o. Office No. 101, Jeevan Jyoti Acrcade, BCabin Naupada, Thane West Maharashtra-400 602. Vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(1) Room No. 632 6th Floor C-41 to C-43 Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. PAN : GURPS1036P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hemant Vora Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar Date of Hearing : 12/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 27/06/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The only ground raised by the appellant is that Ld. AO/DRP erred in making adhoc addition of Rs. 29,03,20,568/- under section 69 of the I.T.Act being unexplained investment in mutual funds and fixed deposits. Ld. AR of the appellant has mentioned that Ld. DRP erred in confirming the addition of Ld. AO without giving opportunity of being heard. The appellant has also contested the addition of Rs. 3,15,014/- on account of undisclosed income from short term capital gains from mutual funds. 2. From the assessment order, it is observed that the appellant is NRI based in Kenya/USA during period of consideration. Notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the I.T. Act were served upon the appellant through e- mail from time to time on ITBA portal. The Ld. AO has got information about various investments of appellant in Fixed Deposits and mutual funds and accordingly notice was issued to the appellant to explain source of the same. As no reply was submitted a final show-cause notice was issued by the Ld. Janki Nipul Savla 2 AO which says that in case of non-compliance of this notice, assessment would be completed under section 144 of Act as best judgment assessment on the basis of material available on record. As the appellant failed to comply with the notices dated 12.8.2023, 13,2,2024 and 24.2.2024 and a show- cause notice dated 21.3.2024 and no requisite details were furnished and hence the Ld. AO made addition under section 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO, an appeal was filed before Ld. DRP. From the order of Ld. DRP, it is observed that there is no compliance by the appellant and hence all the additions made were confirmed by this first appellate authority. 4. Aggrieved by the addition of the Ld. AO as well appeal order of Ld. DRP, present appeal is filed before the Bench with grounds of appeal mentioned in first page of this order. 5. Case was fixed for hearing on 12.6.2025 and on that date Ld. AR of the appellant filed a paper book comprising of documents viz., ICICI bank statement, date-wise transaction report of mutual fund, capital gain statement to demonstrate all these deposits and investments were out of salary and savings of earlier years. Admittedly, all these evidences were not filed before the lower authorities. 6. Ld. DR has argued that the despite several notices issued by the Ld. AO and DRP, appellant remained non-compliant and hence additions made by the Ld. AO should be confirmed. 7. After hearing both sides and perusing the paper book filed by the appellant, it is decided to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO because all these documentary evidences were not filed before the Ld. AO/DRP. The Bench decided to give one more opportunity to appellant to explain the source of all these investments by taking a lenient view that the appellant was not residing in India during the period under consideration. In view of Janki Nipul Savla 3 the same, all the issues of investments, deposits and levy of short term capital gains are remitted to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration and passing a speaking order after giving effective opportunity to the appellant. 8. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "