KHUZEMA ISMAIL ADAMJI,DUBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

ITITA 194/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Khuzema Ismail Adamji, an NRI, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. The Income Tax Department, based on information from the Risk Management Strategy (RMS) and the insight portal, noted that Adamji had made significant investments in immovable property during the financial year 2015-16. Despite multiple opportunities and show cause notices, Adamji failed to comply or provide explanations regarding the source of these investments. Consequently, the AO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.1,28,46,750. Aggrieved by this decision, Adamji appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779374 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIVYA K.J.
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL HAKKANI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 144; 69

Judgement Text

"IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Khuzema Ismail Adamji, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Khuzema Ismail Adamji C/o FCA Pooja Shetty Manager ZADN & Associates LLP 1st Floor Sadhana Rayon House Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 India PAN NO : BMCPA1317F Vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 1(1) Bengaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Rahul Hakkani, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. ITO, Ward International Taxation-1(1), Bangalore, against the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 30.10.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Khuzema Ismail Adamji, Mumbai Page 2 of 6 Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Khuzema Ismail Adamji, Mumbai Page 3 of 6 Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Khuzema Ismail Adamji, Mumbai Page 4 of 6 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being an Individual NRI, did not file his return of Income for the Assessment year 2016- 17. However, there was specific information disseminated through the insight portal in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy (RMS) formulated by the CBDT that the assessee had undertaken the below-mentioned transaction during the financial year 2015-16, relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to explain the source of investment made in the year under reference. There were six occasions on which the assessee made no compliance as observed by the AO in the assessment order. Further, the show cause notices were also issued to the assessee, requiring compliance by 27.11.2023 and 11.12.2023. However, the assessee did not even submit any reply/compliance to the SCN. Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Khuzema Ismail Adamji, Mumbai Page 5 of 6 3.2 In the instant case, as per the information, the assessee had invested in the purchase of immovable property of Rs. 1,28,46,750/- .The assessee also did not file any return of income for the period under consideration. We take note of the fact that before the ld. DRP, the assessee filed objections against the draft order along with the additional evidence with respect to both the additions made u/s 69 of the Act. However, both ld. DRP as well as AO confirmed the addition u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,28,46,750/- and the AO completed the assessment on a total assessed income of Rs.1,28,46,750/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 30.10.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a voluminous paper book in support of his case. 5. Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before the AO. Further, the ld. DRP had also observed that the assessee had failed to provide a requisite explanation with supporting evidences and also the investment made in the property. Further, the ld. DRP did not consider the additional evidence filed before them. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the AO to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being hard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents/records/information/deeds in support of his claim or as may be required by the AO for proper adjudication of the case. It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com IT(IT)A No.194/Bang/2025 Khuzema Ismail Adamji, Mumbai Page 6 of 6 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th Oct, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice-President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 13th Oct, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "