MAYANK BHARADIYA,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1783/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mayank Bharadiya against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), which confirmed an addition of Rs. 22,33,333 to the assessee's income. This addition was part of a total addition of Rs. 44,33,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to prove the source of funds used for purchasing immovable property. The property was purchased for a total consideration of Rs. 1,30,00,000, shared equally among three family members. The assessee claimed that the funds were sourced from personal bank accounts and a bank loan, which could not be substantiated at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found merit in giving the assessee another opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of the investment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473677 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAMTA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: CHHAJED
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1783/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mayank Bharadiya, 9, Vrundravan Bunglows, Thaltej Shilaj, Ahmedabad-380059. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad [PAN No. BZSPB3546G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M S Chhajed, AR Respondent by: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)’] dated 19.07.2023 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A), confirming the addition of Rs.22,33,333/- out of the total addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.44,33,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, on account of failure of the ITA No. 1783/Ahd/2024 Mayank Bharadiya. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2– assessee to prove the source of the amount paid for purchase of immovable property. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the total sale consideration of the property was Rs.1,30,00,000/- which was purchased by his 3 family members with 1/3 shares each. He has further submitted that the source of aforesaid amount Rs.1,30,00,000/- was that Rs. 21,00,000/- was paid by the assessee from his own bank account and Rs.35,00,000/- was arranged through loan from bank and the balance amount was paid by the two co- owners, who are brother and father respectively of the assessee, out of their bank accounts. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not produce the evidence of the aforesaid source of the amount before the Assessing Officer, resulting into impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer as the entire amount was paid by the assessee, his brother and father out of their bank account as well as from the loan raised from the bank, which can be duly verified, and that there cannot be an element of afterthought in this case. 4. I am of the view that the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to produce the ITA No. 1783/Ahd/2024 Mayank Bharadiya. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3– aforesaid evidence of source of investment in immovable property. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to verify the aforesaid contention of the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the relevant evidences before the Assessing Officer as and when called for to prove the source of consideration for the purchase of property in question. 5. With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/-/-/- (SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 17.03.2025 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क\u0007 \b\tत\u000bल\rप अ\u0010े\rषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. \u000bयथ\b / The Respondent. 3. संबं\u0010धत आयकर आयु\u0017त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0017त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. \u001aवभागीय \u001eत\u001eन\u0010ध, आयकर अपील!य अ\u0010धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील\u001eय अ\u001fधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "