NARMADA PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHOPAL

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 14.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-Bengaluru [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.11.2018 passed by learned ITO-1(4), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal.

Narmada Prasad Malviya ITA No. 341/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 dated 28.03.2018 u/s 148 to make assessment u/s 147. In response to

such notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income

of Rs. 1,86,250/-. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) in

response to which the assessee made submissions. The AO also called

details directly from SBI u/s 133(6). In so far as the source of deposits of Rs.

13,50,000/-, the assessee submitted that he sold his house situated at

2/5B-5, M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited [“Sahara”],

Bhopal, to one Shri Mukesh Joshi for Rs. 15,00,000/- and received

consideration of Rs. 9,50,000/- on 20.06.2010 (+) Rs. 5,50,000/- on

15.08.2010, which was utilized for making deposits in bank a/c. The

assessee also filed cash flow statement to AO [Para 4 of assessment-order].

The AO considered assessee’s submission and examined Shri Mukesh Joshi

u/s 131. The statements of Mukesh Joshi were recorded by AO which are

re-produced on Page 6 of assessment-order. Shri Mukesh Joshi denied

having made any purchase of house from assessee. Ultimately, after taking

into account statements of Shri Mukesh Joshi, the AO rejected assessee’s

submission and treated the cash deposits of Rs. 13,64,000/- in bank a/c as

unexplained money u/s 69A, accordingly made addition and completed

assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal but did not get any

success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

submissions:

Page 2 of 6

Narmada Prasad Malviya ITA No. 341/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 (i) That, the assessee booked/purchased a house/unit No. 2/5B-5 with

Sahara. The assessee sold/transferred his booking right to Mr.

Rajendra Kumar Jain through broker Shri Mukesh Joshi. However,

the assessee, due to his limited understanding, got impression that

the said house/unit was sold to Shri Mukesh Joshi. Hence, there was

no sale to Shri Mukesh Joshi, the sale was to Mr. Rajendra Kumar

Jain. To establish this correct fact, the assessee has filed a

Confirmatory Certificate dated 14.10.2010 issued by Sahara wherein

Sahara has confirmed that the assessee’s booking was transferred in

the name of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain. Further, a payment of 2% of

unit price was also made to Sahara towards transfer fee. The Payment

Schedule of Sahara is also filed. These documents are filed at Pages 1-

3 of Paper-Book.

(ii) That, the assessee was under distressed circumstance since his son

suffered from a serious disease (and unfortunately expired also

untimely) and hence the booking of house/unit was sold to arrange

finance. Further, assessee’s wife Smt. Asha Malviya has also expired

adding more challenges to assessee.

adjudication by AO taking into account correct facts. Ld. AR prayed to

restore this case to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). He

assured that the assessee shall extend full co-operation to JAO and make an

effective representation.

Page 3 of 6

Narmada Prasad Malviya ITA No. 341/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 5. Ld. DR for revenue though dutifully supported the orders of lower

authorities but ultimately, considering the facts of case and compelling

circumstances being faced by assessee, left the matter to the wisdom of

bench without raising any objection against remand to JAO.

record. The core dispute revolves around cash deposits of Rs. 13,64,000/-

made by the assessee in his SBI bank account during AY 2011-12, which

the AO treated as unexplained money u/s 69A. The AO's rejection of the

assessee's explanation was primarily based upon the statement of Shri

Mukesh Joshi recorded u/s 131 wherein Shri Mukesh Joshi categorically

denied having purchased any house from assessee. However, a crucial fact

has now emerged before us, which was not brought to the attention of the

lower authorities in the correct perspective at the relevant time. As per the

clarification now advanced by Ld. AR, the assessee had booked/purchased a

house/unit No. 2/5B-5 from Sahara and the said booking-right was

subsequently transferred/sold not to Shri Mukesh Joshi personally, but to

one Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, with Shri Mukesh Joshi acting merely as a

broker/middleman facilitating the transaction of sale. The assessee, due to

limited understanding of real estate transaction procedures, erroneously

represented before AO that the house was sold to Shri Mukesh Joshi, which

naturally led Shri Mukesh Joshi to deny any purchase having been made

from assessee. In support of this corrected version of facts, the assessee has

placed on record certain documents as narrated by us in earlier para 3(i) of

Page 4 of 6

Narmada Prasad Malviya ITA No. 341/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 this order. Those documents emanating from Sahara itself, a third-party

corporate entity, carry significant evidentiary weight and prima facie

corroborate the assessee's revised and clarified explanation regarding the

source of the impugned cash deposits.

which arose to assessee from impugned transaction of transfer/sale of

house/unit. On a query raised by bench, Ld. Representatives of both sides

accepted that the resultant capital gain has to be assessed.

the orders of the lower authorities, did not raise any specific objection to the

matter being remanded to the file of the JAO for fresh adjudication in light

of the fresh/clarified facts and documentary evidence now available on

record.

warrants a fresh adjudication by JAO. The JAO shall examine the

documents filed by assessee. He may also make necessary enquiries from

Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain regarding purchase of the impugned house/unit

from assessee. Thereafter, the JAO shall pass a fresh order in accordance

with law after affording assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee, through his Ld. AR, has assured full co-operation and

effective representation, and we expect that such assurance shall be

honoured. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the JAO for a

Page 5 of 6

Narmada Prasad Malviya ITA No. 341/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 fresh adjudication in light of the observations made hereinabove, keeping all

issues open.

Order pronounced in open court on 17/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक/Dated : 17/04/2026

Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 6 of 6