MITESHKUMAR DHANJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5) PREVIOUS WARD-3(3)(14), AHMEDABAD

ITA 243/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 50,00,000 as unexplained investment in immovable property under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The property was purchased during the Financial Year 2010-11, and the assessee did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act based on data indicating the purchase of a property registered for Rs. 50,00,000. The Assessing Officer added the amount as unexplained investment when the assessee failed to explain the source of funds during the assessment. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713208 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRITESH SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.243/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel, 39, Panchamrut Vastuvilla, Science City Road, Near Water Tank, Ahmedabad – 380 062. [PAN – AKNPP 3248 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(3)(5), Previous Ward – 3(3)(14) Aaykar Bhavan (Vejalpur). Near Sachin Tower, 100 Feet Road, Anandnagar – Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pritesh Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”), dated 22.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 2. The brief facts of the case are that no return of income was filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from ITS and NMS data that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs.50,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2010-11, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.243/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 which was registered with SRO, Vadaj. Accordingly, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2018. In the course of assessment, the assessee did not explain the source of investment in the property purchased during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Act in respect of unexplained investment in the property. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 18.12.2018 at a total income of Rs.52,60,190/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following ground has been taken in this appeal: - “1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of purchase of immovable property considering the same as unexplained under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such addition is requested to be deleted.” 5. Shri Pritesh Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the assessee along with his wife had purchased a residential bungalow No.39 Panchamrut Villa, Sola, Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/. He explained that out of total consideration, a sum of Rs.49,00,000/- was paid by the wife of the assessee and only Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the assessee. He submitted that in the purchase deed the assessee’s wife Shilaben Miteshkumar Patel was the first buyer and the assessee was the second buyer. As regarding source of investment, the Ld. AR explained Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.243/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 that the assessee’s wife had received Rs.49,00,000/- from her father Shri Nagarbhai Shankarbhai Patel. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not allowed sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of investment. However, the details in this regard were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who had rejected the explanation of the assessee without calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s father-in-law had also filed a confirmation regarding advance of Rs.49,00,000/- to his daughter Smt. Shilaben Miteshkumar Patel who was the first owner of the property. Considering these facts, no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee. 6. Per contra, Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the explanation of the assessee for the reason that the creditworthiness of the father-in-law of the assessee, for advancing Rs.49,00,000/-, was not established. He, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found from the assessment order that the source of investment of Rs.50,00,000/- in the purchase of property was not explained before the AO. However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an explanation in respect of source of investment in the property. It was submitted that the sum of Rs.49,00,000/- was received from the assessee’s father-in-law in the Bank account of his wife Smt. Shilaben Miteshkumar Patel. The payment of Rs.35,00,000/- was made directly to the seller through the bank account of the assessee’s wife and a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee’s account which was utilised for making the payment for purchase of property. A confirmation of Shri Nagarbhai Shankarbhai Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.243/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 Patel, father-in-law of the assessee, along with copy of his ITR was also filed before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, these were additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on which no remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) on his own has given a finding that the creditworthiness of the assessee’s father-in-law was not established. It is found from copy of ITR of Shri Nagarbhai Shankarbhai Patel that he had disclosed income of Rs.52,28,000/- in the A.Y. 2011-12. Considering the evidences brought on record by the assessee in the course of appeal proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in out-rightly rejecting the same without calling for the remand report from the AO or any further explanation from the assessee. In the interest of justice, we, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the additional evidences brought on record by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appal proceeding and, thereafter, re-adjudicate the matter. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 30th July, 2025 PBN/* Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.243/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) The PCIT (4) The CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPYE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "