PARVEEN PARVEZ MOTLEKAR ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4814/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Parveen Parvez Motlekar against the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeal were the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 148, the additions made under Section 69, and the invocation of provisions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately examined the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, particularly regarding the source of funds used in the property purchase and the applicability of the fair market value as per the Stamp Duty Valuation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847875 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH THAKURDESAI; SUNIL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 148; 56(2); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Parveen Parvez Motlekar 205, Krishna Niwas, St. Pauls Road, Near Dilkush Bungalow, Bandra (West), Mumbai -400050 Vs. Assessment Unit- Income Tax Department R.No. 512, 5th Floor Piramal Chambers Mumbai - 400012 PAN/GIR No. AWHPM9890R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashish Thakurdesai, CA & Shri Sunil Desai, CA Revenue by Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 19.06.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2015-16. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming initiation of proceedings u/s 148 by the learned AO as valid, when the appellant had satisfactorily submitted u/s 148 A(b) that Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 the said flat was purchased by her parents and she did not contribute in it. The entire proceedings based on conjectures and surmises be set aside as void ab initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition u/s 69 of Rs. 28,41,166 disregarding the submission made by the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) whereas the appellant has still not received immovable property. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Rs. 35,78,833 made by AO. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or modify the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of the appeal. ” 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the AO as valid. In this regard, the ld. AR had not advanced any arguments to contest this ground, and no written submissions were filed in support of this ground. Therefore, in the absence of any pleadings, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 3. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in making additions under Section 69 of the Act and also invoking the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Act. Therefore, we Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that, as per the facts of the present case, the assessee, along with her parents, had purchased Flat No. 1304, Sarthak Heights, Andheri West, Mumbai, vide registered agreement dated 20.02.2015, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 75,77,500. However, the FMV as per the Stamp Duty Authority was Rs. 1,83,14,000. Therefore, additions under Section 69 of the Act were made by the AO on account of the fact that the assessee, along with her parents, had purchased the flat in question at less than the stamp duty value, resulting in a difference of Rs. 1,07,36,500. 5. On the above basis, the AO attributed 1/3rd of the Fair Market Value (FMV) difference, amounting to Rs. 35,78,833, as the assessee’s share of unexplained investment. Apart from this, the AO also added 1/3rd of the declared purchase price, i.e., Rs. 25,25,833, leading to a total addition of Rs. 64,19,999 under Section 69 of the Act. 6. Now, first of all, we deal with the addition made by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) under Section 69 of the Act. In this Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 regard, we noticed that the assessee had specifically argued that the entire purchase consideration of Rs. 75,77,500 was paid by her parents, and the assessee did not contribute any funds. Despite these claims, the AO observed that the assessee’s name was included as a co-purchaser in the registered sale agreement, implying beneficial ownership and financial interest. However, at the same time, the AO has completely ignored the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee, more particularly the list of details at paper book page No. 67, wherein the source of the entire amount of Rs. 75,77,500 has been mentioned and the same is reproduced herein below: Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 7. Since the AO has neither examined nor verified the source of the entire amount paid through banking channels by the parents, the same has been ignored. Therefore, we are of the view that this issue requires to be restored to the file of the AO to verify the source of the payments actually made while purchasing the flat in question. The AO is directed to adjudicate this ground afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 8. Now, as far as the applicability of Section 56(2) of the Act is concerned, we noticed that the AO has completely ignored the letter of allotment at paper book page No. 1, reproduced herein below: Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 Upon perusal of the said document, we found that the flat in question was allotted to the assessee and her parents i.e. Mohiddin Siddiq and Mymoona Siddiq on 14.12.2012, and some payment was also made to Sarthak Developers towards the purchase of the property. The remaining details are contained at paper book page No. 67. 9. It has been argued that the initial payment was made by the assessee through banking channels via cheque No. 969307 dated 25.08.2009, thus, the right in the property had accrued in favour Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 of the assessee during that period itself. Therefore, the AO had wrongly applied the FMV as per the Stamp Duty Valuation as on 2015. 10. We found that the AO has not examined the specific contentions raised by the assessee and had instead rejected her claim. Therefore, we are of the view that this issue also requires in-depth verification in light of the documents submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, we restore this issue also to the file of the AO for verification and fresh adjudication after providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the assessee. 11. The assessee is at liberty to raise any other ground or file any additional documents in support of her contentions. 12. Consequently, the orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in terms indicated above. 13. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25/03/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 4814/Mum/2025 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "