MANNU BHATIA,DUBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE

ITITA 3121/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mannu Bhatia, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning the source of funds used for purchasing two properties in Gurgaon during the Assessment Year 2016-17. Initially, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not admit additional evidence provided by the assessee, leading to the restoration of the matter by the ITAT in a previous round. In the current proceedings, the ITAT found that the assessee failed to provide a loan agreement or clear evidence linking the loan to the properties in question. Despite these shortcomings, the ITAT decided to remand the case back to the AO, emphasizing that an assessee should not suffer due to the mistake of their counsel and granting the assessee another opportunity to present the necessary documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713231 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL KUMAR GOVILA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHESH SINHA; TARUN ROHTAGI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.3121/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) Mannu Bhatia, 1704, Mesk Tower, AL Marsa Road, Dubai PAN-AFNPB4279A Vs. ACIT, Civic Centre, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. & Shri Tarun Rohtagi, CA Department by Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM: The present appeal of the assessee is arising out from the order of Ld. Assessing Officer dated 31st March, 2025 having DIN/Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1075358904(1) and relates to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. This is second round of litigation. In the first round, the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.819/Del/2023 has restored the matter to the DRP and directed the DRP to pass order afresh after considering the evidences filed by the assessee with respect to the explanation of the source of money utilized by assessee in purchasing of house. The assessee has purchased two properties in Sector-112 of the Gurgaon. One is Unit No.1002 and other one is WW-02, Sector-112, Gurgaon. The lower authorities had asked for the source of money utilized by assesse in purchase of these houses. In response the assesse filed certain additional evidences before the DRP, which were not admitted by the DRP. And hence the matter has been restored by the ITAT. 3. After receiving the directions of the ITAT, the DRP passed the fresh order and concluded that in this round also the assesse has only filed e- Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3121 /Del/2025 Mannu Bhatia vs. ACIT sanction letter of ICICI, from this letter it is not discernable as to whether the loan was granted for the same property which the assesse is contending. Similarly, the Ld. DRP has observed that the assessee has not submit any details with respect to the investment made in mutual fund. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO/ DRP assessee has come in appeal before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while arguing the matter reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 4.1 Ld. DRP has relied upon the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the course of hearing, we have asked the assessee counsel as to whether the copy of loan agreement, exhibiting the address of the property, issued from ICICI Bank, has been filed by the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that some other counsel was handling the matter before the lower authorities who did not file the copy of loan agreement. Even before us the counsel for the assessee has failed to file any such evidence which would show that the assessee has actually taken loan for the two properties. Further there is also no clarity with respect to the addresses of the property number-1 and 2. In such circumstances the assessee wont deserve any relief. However, it is the settled position of law that the an assessee would not suffer on account of mistake of his counsel. Therefore, in the interest of justice we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration at the end of AO. We order accordingly. 6. Before parting we would direct the assessee to file the relevant documentary such as loan agreement and any other supporting documents which would show the nexus of loan disbursed with the address of the properties. Similarly, the assessee will have liberty to file supporting evidence with respect to the investments made in mutual funds. Needless to say, that AO will grant meaningful opportunities to the assessee before passing any order. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3121 /Del/2025 Mannu Bhatia vs. ACIT 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31/07/2025 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "