MITU MOHINDRU,DELHI V. ACIT CIRCLE-INTL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

ITA 2134/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mitu Mohindru, the appellant, who challenged the final assessment order for the Assessment Year 2016-17 passed by the ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(1), Delhi. The ACIT had reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, believing that income for the said assessment year had escaped assessment. The ACIT added Rs. 1,23,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, based on the purchase of an immovable property. The appellant contested this addition, arguing that the actual transaction was for Rs. 30,00,000, supported by a registered sale deed. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, including the sale deed, found in favor of the appellant, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the ACIT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779678 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: VAIBHAV GOEL
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 69

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 2134/Del/2025 MituMohindru Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2134/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Mitu Mohindru C/o CA VaibhavGoel 75 Navyug Market 1st Floor, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh PAN: AQJPM9070D Vs ACIT Circle, International TAxtdaion-2(2)(1) Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR Date of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the assesseepertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17 challenging the Final Assessment Order dated 27/01/2025 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(1) u/s143(3) Section 147r.w.Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee has not filed the return for Assessment Year 2016-17. The case of the Assessee was reopened for scrutiny u/s 147 of the Act after according to the reason to believe that Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 2134/Del/2025 MituMohindru Vs. ACIT income for Assessment Year 2016-17 has escaped assessment. As per the NMS data during the year under consideration,Assessee purchased an immovable property amounting for the sale consideration of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- and received interest on security of Rs. 19,063/- but not filed income tax return. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w. 144C (13) of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act.Aggrieved by the Final Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submittedthat A.O. erred in treating the amount of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- as unexplainedinvestment u/s 69 of the Act without any evidence on record and ignoring the fact that the Assessee has not invested any sum existing Rs. 1,23,00,000/- in purchase of the property. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the registered sale deed placed in the Paper Book and contended that the saledeed has been executed for Rs. 30,00,000/- which is less than circle value of the property. Further submitted that there is any iota of evidence to prove that the Assessee has purchased immovable property for sum of Rs. 1,23,00,000/-, thus sough for allowing the Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 2134/Del/2025 MituMohindru Vs. ACIT 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee has failed to make complete submission before the A.O. and in the absence of any material on record, the authorities below rightly made addition which requires no interference in the hands of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the specific case of the Assessee that the Assessee has purchased the property bearing for Rs. 30,00,000/- whereas the circle rate of the property was Rs. 29,82,194/- and the Assessee denied to have purchasedthe property for Rs. 1,23,00,000/-. To substantiate the said claim, Assessee produced the registered sale deed before the authorities below and also before us, wherein the sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs. 30,00,000/- and the said sale consideration is more than the prevailing circle rate at that point of time. There is no material brought on record by the Department to show that the actual sale transaction or the property has been registered for Rs.1,23,00,000/-. Therefore, the impugned addition has been made without any basis and the findings of the A.O. is contrary to the material on record such as registered sale deed itself. In view of the above, we find no reason to sustain the addition made by the A.O. accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by the A.O. in the impugned final assessment order is hereby deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 2134/Del/2025 MituMohindru Vs. ACIT 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th October, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 17.10.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "