VILASBEN PUROHIT,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4879/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vilasben Purohit, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 47,54,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not filed her regular return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 and was identified as a non-filer. Subsequently, it was discovered that she had made an investment in an immovable property. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Act, which the assessee failed to respond to adequately. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773496 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH THAKURDESAI
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148; 142(1); 69; 133(6); 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vilasben Purohit, A 404, Snehal Tower, Sayar Pada, Borivali, Mumbai-400066. Vs. ITO 42(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AQQPP 6847 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashish Thakurdesai Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds: 1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that reopening of assessment of the appellant is invalid in law. 2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Printed from counselvise.com Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs.47,54 Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. 3. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming disallowance of deduc Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged of u/s 234A and Income 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her regular return of income for the year under consideration. Consequently, the assessee was identified as a non filer by the Income-tax Depa Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued. No compliance thereto was made. 2.1 A specific information was received that the assessee had made investment in an immovable property, namely F 10th Floor, Neelam CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 115, Model Town, Andheri (West), Mumbai, amounting to 2.2 Considering the non the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 10.02.2023, providing opportunity to explain the source of investment. The assessee, however, failed to respond. Accordingly, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs.47,54,000/- u/s 69 r w s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming disallowance of deduction of Rs.12,873/- under Chapter VI Income Tax Act, 1961. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged of u/s 234A and u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her regular return of income for the year under consideration. Consequently, the assessee was identified as a non tax Department and statutory notice under the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued. No compliance thereto was made. pecific information was received that the assessee had made investment in an immovable property, namely F 10th Floor, Neelam CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 115, Model Town, Andheri (West), Mumbai, amounting to ₹94,85,601/- Considering the non-filing of return and the said investment, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 10.02.2023, providing opportunity to explain the source of investment. The assessee, however, failed to respond. Accordingly, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on Vilasben Purohit 2 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of u/s 69 r w s 115BBE of the Income Tax On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming disallowance under Chapter VI-A of the On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest u/s 234B of the Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her regular return of income for the year under consideration. Consequently, the assessee was identified as a non- rtment and statutory notice under the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was pecific information was received that the assessee had made investment in an immovable property, namely Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 115, Model Town, -. filing of return and the said investment, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 10.02.2023, providing opportunity to explain the source of investment. The assessee, however, failed to respond. Accordingly, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on Printed from counselvise.com 13.03.2023 and notice under section 148 was issued on the same date, after obtaining requisite approval of the specified authority 2.3 In response, the assessee filed her return of income 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid investment. In reply, the assessee submitted that the property wholly owned by her late husband, and that her name was reflected merely as a “nominee”. It was explained that her husband, a salaried employee, who unfortunately expired in May 2021 due to Covid-19, had made almost the entire payment from savings, retirement benefits, and LIC proceeds received upon his death. 2.4 The AO, however, obtained copy of the registered purchase deed from Joint Registrar stamp duty 133(6) and found that both the assessee and h reflected as joint purchasers, each with 50% share. The AO also noted that the public provident fund incomplete and failed to establish withdrawal of claimed. Further, the payment schedule furnis regarding payment made by Purohit was found inconsistent with the terms of the registered agreement, as substantial payments were shown to have been made much after the stipulated period. ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 13.03.2023 and notice under section 148 was issued on the same date, after obtaining requisite approval of the specified authority In response, the assessee filed her return of income 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid investment. In reply, the assessee submitted that the property in question was wholly owned by her late husband, and that her name was reflected merely as a “nominee”. It was explained that her husband, a salaried employee, who unfortunately expired in May 2021 due to 19, had made almost the entire payment from savings, retirement benefits, and LIC proceeds received upon his The AO, however, obtained copy of the registered purchase Joint Registrar stamp duty through notice under section 133(6) and found that both the assessee and her husband were reflected as joint purchasers, each with 50% share. The AO also public provident fund (PPF) statement produced was incomplete and failed to establish withdrawal of ₹ claimed. Further, the payment schedule furnished by the assessee regarding payment made by her late husband Mr. Jayant Amritlal was found inconsistent with the terms of the registered agreement, as substantial payments were shown to have been made much after the stipulated period. The Assessing Officer noted that Vilasben Purohit 3 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 13.03.2023 and notice under section 148 was issued on the same date, after obtaining requisite approval of the specified authority. In response, the assessee filed her return of income on 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of ₹4,01,250/-. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid investment. in question was wholly owned by her late husband, and that her name was reflected merely as a “nominee”. It was explained that her husband, a salaried employee, who unfortunately expired in May 2021 due to 19, had made almost the entire payment from his salary savings, retirement benefits, and LIC proceeds received upon his The AO, however, obtained copy of the registered purchase through notice under section er husband were reflected as joint purchasers, each with 50% share. The AO also (PPF) statement produced was ₹23,33,197/- as hed by the assessee her late husband Mr. Jayant Amritlal was found inconsistent with the terms of the registered agreement, as substantial payments were shown to have been made ng Officer noted that Printed from counselvise.com as per the sale agreement complete payment was to be made within 15 days from the execution of the agreement whereas payment details submitted by the assessee made payment of Rs.48,85,000/ after five years of the execution of the agr investment remain unexplained. reconciliation, the AO concluded that source of 50% share of investment attributable to the assessee, amounting to , remained unexplained within the meaning of section and accordingly made addition under section 69 read with section 115BBE for unexplained investment observing as under: “In this case, the assessee had purchased a Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, Model Andheri West Mumbai husband Shri Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- Rs.94,85,601/ The assessee was asked to submit source of investment 95,08,000/- [90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78,000 stamp duty+30,000 registry charges). The assessee vide reply dated 28.08.2023 has stated that she has not contributed any funds for the said flat, whole purchase consideration was paid by her husband as the flat was wholly owned by him (100% ownership). Her name was mentioned in the agreement only as a nominee. On perusal of agreement, contention of the assessee found wrong. Ownership share has not been mentioned in the agreement which means bot share i.e. 50% each. Further the assessee failed to explain source of investment of her husband also. As the assessee has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such investment. Hence, assess unexplained investment. The income earned during the year has not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid. ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 as per the sale agreement complete payment was to be made within 15 days from the execution of the agreement whereas payment details submitted by the assessee made payment of Rs.48,85,000/ after five years of the execution of the agreement and source of investment remain unexplained. In the absence of proper reconciliation, the AO concluded that source of 50% share of investment attributable to the assessee, amounting to , remained unexplained within the meaning of section and accordingly made addition under section 69 read with section unexplained investment observing as under: In this case, the assessee had purchased a Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, Model Andheri West Mumbai-400053 on 30.03.2016 jointly with her husband Shri Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consideration of Rs. stamp duty has been charged on the value of Rs.94,85,601/-. The assessee was asked to submit source of investment [90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78,000 stamp duty+30,000 registry charges). The assessee vide reply dated 28.08.2023 has stated that she has not contributed any funds for the said flat, whole purchase consideration was paid by her usband as the flat was wholly owned by him (100% ownership). Her name was mentioned in the agreement only as a On perusal of agreement, contention of the assessee found wrong. Ownership share has not been mentioned in the agreement which means both husband and wife have equal share i.e. 50% each. Further the assessee failed to explain source of investment of her husband also. As the assessee has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such investment. Hence, assessee's share is treated as unexplained investment. The income earned during the year has not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid. Vilasben Purohit 4 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 as per the sale agreement complete payment was to be made within 15 days from the execution of the agreement whereas payment details submitted by the assessee made payment of Rs.48,85,000/- eement and source of In the absence of proper reconciliation, the AO concluded that source of 50% share of investment attributable to the assessee, amounting to ₹47,54,000/- , remained unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the Act, and accordingly made addition under section 69 read with section unexplained investment observing as under: In this case, the assessee had purchased a Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, Model Town, 400053 on 30.03.2016 jointly with her husband Shri Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consideration of Rs. stamp duty has been charged on the value of The assessee was asked to submit source of investment of Rs. [90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78,000 stamp duty+30,000 registry charges). The assessee vide reply dated 28.08.2023 has stated that she has not contributed any funds for the said flat, whole purchase consideration was paid by her usband as the flat was wholly owned by him (100% ownership). Her name was mentioned in the agreement only as a On perusal of agreement, contention of the assessee found wrong. Ownership share has not been mentioned in the h husband and wife have equal share i.e. 50% each. Further the assessee failed to explain source of investment of her husband also. As the assessee has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the ee's share is treated as unexplained investment. The income earned during the year has not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid. Printed from counselvise.com In the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, source of investment in immovable property a 47,54,000/-(50% share of Rs.95,08,000/ as per the section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, an addition of Rs. 47,54,000/ of the IT Act and added to the total income of 3. In appeal, the assessee furnished a detailed statement of payments asserting that husband’s resources and The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank transactions but noticed discrepancies. He observed that several payments were routed through accounts other than the disclosed pension account of the husband; certain payments were m assessee and daughter; some were claimed to be out of LIC proceeds or loans from relatives, but were not corroborated with verifiable documents. The CIT(A) therefore concluded that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily investment of her husband as well. Consequently, he upheld the AO’s action in treating the assessee’s 50% share, i.e., as unexplained investment. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Date Amt 17-Sep-14 24,30,000 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 In the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, source of investment in immovable property amounting to Rs. (50% share of Rs.95,08,000/-) remain unexplained as per the section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, an addition of Rs. 47,54,000/-has been made u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and added to the total income of the assess In appeal, the assessee furnished a detailed statement of payments asserting that ₹96,21,000/- had been made out of her husband’s resources and ₹2,34,000/- had been contributed by her. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank transactions but noticed discrepancies. He observed that several payments were routed through accounts other than the disclosed pension account of the husband; certain payments were made from joint accounts with the assessee and daughter; some were claimed to be out of LIC proceeds or loans from relatives, but were not corroborated with verifiable documents. The CIT(A) therefore concluded that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the sources of investment of her husband as well. Consequently, he upheld the AO’s action in treating the assessee’s 50% share, i.e., as unexplained investment. The relevant analysis done CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Explanation by the appellant Analysis & decision This is Mr. Jayant account Mr. Jayant Amrital Purohit, husband of the appellant was employed with Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai \"MCGM\" and retired from service 2013. The appellant had submitted the account details of his pension benefit for Bank of India a/c no. 0051101000 observed that this payment was made through Bank of India a/c no 005110100046237. Thus the source Vilasben Purohit 5 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 In the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, mounting to Rs. ) remain unexplained as per the section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, an has been made u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE assessee.” In appeal, the assessee furnished a detailed statement of had been made out of her had been contributed by her. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank transactions but noticed discrepancies. He observed that several payments were routed through accounts other than the disclosed pension account of the ade from joint accounts with the assessee and daughter; some were claimed to be out of LIC proceeds or loans from relatives, but were not corroborated with verifiable documents. The CIT(A) therefore concluded that the establish the sources of investment of her husband as well. Consequently, he upheld the AO’s action in treating the assessee’s 50% share, i.e., ₹47,54,000/-, relevant analysis done by the Ld. Analysis & decision Mr. Jayant Amrital Purohit, husband of the appellant was employed with Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai \"MCGM\" and retired from service 2013. The appellant had submitted the account details of his pension benefit for Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228 However it is observed that this payment was made through Bank of India a/c no 005110100046237. Thus the source Printed from counselvise.com 14-Nov-14 3,51,000/- 20-Dec-17 4,05,000/- 01-Jan-18 4,50,000/- 17-Mar-15 10,00,000/- 18-Aug-21 49,85,000/- ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 of this payment is not verifiable. This is the pension account of Mr. Jayant The appellant had submitted the payment was made from his husband account out of his pension benefit. The pension benefit had received in alc for Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228 However it is observed that this payment was made through Bank 016812110000211. Thus the of this payment is not verifiable. This is Mr. Jayant account It is observed that this payment was made through Bank NKGSB a/c no 92100100000074 However the appellant had not explained the source of such payment. Thus the source of this payment is not verifiable. This is Mr. Jayant account It is observed that this payment was made through Bank NKGSB a/c no 92100100000074 However the appellant had not explained the source of such payment. Thus the source of this payment is not verifiable. This is salary account of Mr. Jayant The appellant had submitted the payment was made from his husband account out of his pension benefit. The pension benefit had received in a/c for Bank 005110100046228. However it is observed that the appellant had submitted the bank statement only till date 09.02.2015 but the payment has been made on 17 March 2015, the appellant had not able to explained the source of payment. Thus the source of this payment is not verifiable. 1) Amount of Rs.22,08,900/was paid out of LIC proceeds received on death of my husband is received in my NKGSB account bank 092100100000089 and from there | have transferred it to NKGSB 092100100000 074 2) Rs.20,00,000/- taken Daughter from Hemali as loan. She is salaried employee. 3) Balance was paid from accumulated funds in The appellant had submitted the SB payment was made from proceeds received out of LI bank a/c NKGSB account bank 092100100000089 and thereafter they transferred in another account NKGSB 092100100000 074 and from there the payment for purchase of property had made. The appell tenable because the claim is without any supporting documents along with bank statement. There is no dispute that had received but this proceeds has Vilasben Purohit 6 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 of this payment is not verifiable. The appellant had submitted the t was made from his husband account out of his pension benefit. The pension benefit had received in alc for Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228 However it is observed that this payment was made through Bank of India a/c no 016812110000211. Thus the source of this payment is not verifiable. It is observed that this payment was made through Bank NKGSB a/c no 92100100000074 However the appellant had not explained the source of such payment. Thus the source of this payment is not It is observed that this payment was made through Bank NKGSB a/c no 92100100000074 However the appellant had not explained the source of such payment. Thus the rce of this payment is not The appellant had submitted the payment was made from his husband account out of his pension benefit. The pension benefit had received in Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228. However it is observed that the appellant had submitted the bank statement only till date 09.02.2015 but the payment has been made on 17 March 2015, the appellant had not able to explained the source of payment. e source of this payment verifiable. The appellant had submitted the SB payment was made from proceeds received out of LIC policy in bank a/c NKGSB account bank 092100100000089 and thereafter they transferred in another account NKGSB 092100100000 074 and from there the payment for purchase of property had made. The appellant's claim is not tenable because the claim is without any supporting documents along with bank statement. There is no that the proceeds from LIC had received but this proceeds has Printed from counselvise.com 16-May-13 1,17,000/- 26-Jun-13 1,17,000/- 4. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat in question was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her a total consideration of share in the property and therefore, was asked to explain the source of said 50%. been that the purchase consideration was funded pred her late husband out of salary savings, retirement dues, pension, and LIC proceeds, and that her role was limited. The record further ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 the bank account been utilized for purchasing this property needs bank statements. But the appellant had submitted bank statement for limited period only for bank alc of Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228. Further the credit worthiness and genuineness of t related to daughter Hemali has not proved. No ITR Banks statement etc. has submitted of daughter Hemali. Further the appellant had also not submitted any evidences for accumulated fund Therefore the source of this payment is not verifiable. Amount paid from my account was paid out amount of received from my Brother in Law Rs.2,40,000/- in Sept and Oct 2012 The appellant has not produced the document of loan taken from brother law to substantiate its claim. The credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction related to Brother Law has not statement etc. has submitted of Brother in Law. Therefore the source of this payment is not verifiable. Amount paid from my account was paid out amount of received from my The Brother in Law Rs.2,40,000/- in Sept and Oct 2012 The appellant has not produced the document of loan taken from brother in law to substantiate its claim. The credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction related to Brother in Law has not proved. No ITR Banks statement etc. has submitted of Brother in Law. Therefore the source payment of is this We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat in question was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her a total consideration of ₹95,08,000/-. the assessee was having 50% share in the property and therefore, was asked to explain the source of said 50%. The assessee’s explanation throughout has been that the purchase consideration was funded pred her late husband out of salary savings, retirement dues, pension, and LIC proceeds, and that her role was limited. The record further Vilasben Purohit 7 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 been utilized for purchasing this property needs bank statements. But the appellant had submitted bank statement for limited period only for bank alc of Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228. Further the credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction related to daughter Hemali has not proved. No ITR Banks statement etc. has submitted of daughter Hemali. Further the appellant had also not submitted any evidences for accumulated fund refore the source of this payment is not verifiable. The appellant has not produced the document of loan taken from brother law to substantiate its claim. The credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction related to Brother not proved. No ITR Banks statement etc. has submitted of Brother in Law. Therefore the source of this payment is not verifiable. appellant has not produced the document of loan taken from brother in law to substantiate its claim. The credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction related to Brother in Law has not proved. No ITR Banks statement etc. has submitted of r in Law. Therefore the source payment of is this not verifiable. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat in question was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her husband for the assessee was having 50% share in the property and therefore, was asked to explain the The assessee’s explanation throughout has been that the purchase consideration was funded predominantly by her late husband out of salary savings, retirement dues, pension, and LIC proceeds, and that her role was limited. The record further Printed from counselvise.com shows that assessee had, before the CIT(A), furnished details of payments, but the CIT(A) rejected the same p that certain bank accounts were not properly explained, that some transactions were made from joint accounts, and that supporting documents for LIC proceeds, alleged loans, and accumulated funds were not fully produced. 4.1 It is also noted that while the CIT(A) analysed certain payments, but he failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee’s own limited contribution of the entire 50% share of investment as unexplained without examining the evidentiary worth of each source in detail. Further, the finding that the daughter of the assessee was not filing return of income cannot by itself be determinative, in absence of enquiry into the actual source of deposits and transfers into the relevant accounts. 4.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is willing to file all necessary documents in support of sources as pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A). 4.3 Having regard to the peculiar facts, the death of the primary purchaser (assessee’s husband), and the consistent stand of the assessee that she is willing to produce all supporting documents such as bank statements, LIC proceeds and retirement benefit details, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 shows that assessee had, before the CIT(A), furnished details of payments, but the CIT(A) rejected the same primarily on the ground that certain bank accounts were not properly explained, that some transactions were made from joint accounts, and that supporting documents for LIC proceeds, alleged loans, and accumulated funds were not fully produced. o noted that while the CIT(A) analysed certain payments, but he failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee’s own limited contribution of ₹2,34,000/-, and summarily confirmed the entire 50% share of investment as unexplained without ntiary worth of each source in detail. Further, the finding that the daughter of the assessee was not filing return of income cannot by itself be determinative, in absence of enquiry into the actual source of deposits and transfers into the relevant Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is willing to file all necessary documents in support of sources as pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A). Having regard to the peculiar facts, the death of the primary purchaser (assessee’s husband), and the consistent stand of the assessee that she is willing to produce all supporting documents such as bank statements, LIC proceeds and retirement benefit ils, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of Vilasben Purohit 8 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 shows that assessee had, before the CIT(A), furnished details of rimarily on the ground that certain bank accounts were not properly explained, that some transactions were made from joint accounts, and that supporting documents for LIC proceeds, alleged loans, and accumulated funds o noted that while the CIT(A) analysed certain payments, but he failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee’s , and summarily confirmed the entire 50% share of investment as unexplained without ntiary worth of each source in detail. Further, the finding that the daughter of the assessee was not filing return of income cannot by itself be determinative, in absence of enquiry into the actual source of deposits and transfers into the relevant Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is willing to file all necessary documents in support of Having regard to the peculiar facts, the death of the primary purchaser (assessee’s husband), and the consistent stand of the assessee that she is willing to produce all supporting documents such as bank statements, LIC proceeds and retirement benefit ils, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of Printed from counselvise.com substantial justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to substantiate her explanation. 4.4 Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the impugned issue and res examine afresh the entire evidences that may be furnished by the assessee regarding sources of payment for the purchase of property. The assessee is directed to fully co documents including complete bank statements, LIC policy proceeds, retirement benefits, and loan confirmations, if any as pointed out in impugned order by the ld Cit(A). The ld CIT(A) shall then pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 substantial justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to substantiate her explanation. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the impugned issue and restore the matter to his file with a direction to examine afresh the entire evidences that may be furnished by the assessee regarding sources of payment for the purchase of property. The assessee is directed to fully co-operate and furnish all relevant ents including complete bank statements, LIC policy proceeds, retirement benefits, and loan confirmations, if any as pointed out in impugned order by the ld Cit(A). The ld CIT(A) shall then pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of o the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vilasben Purohit 9 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 substantial justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the tore the matter to his file with a direction to examine afresh the entire evidences that may be furnished by the assessee regarding sources of payment for the purchase of property. operate and furnish all relevant ents including complete bank statements, LIC policy proceeds, retirement benefits, and loan confirmations, if any as pointed out in impugned order by the ld Cit(A). The ld CIT(A) shall then pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /09/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Vilasben Purohit 10 ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "