ASSIFUDDIN MEHBOOB KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM
Per Padmavathy S, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short
'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated
25.08.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the provisions of Section 249(4) in as much as he did not pay the demand raised of Rs. 43,44,947 before filing the appeal.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had filed his return of income in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 and there was no tax liability which was payable by him as per the said return of income.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice, the learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the requirement to make the payment of amount equal to advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) could not have been construed as the requirement to make the payment of the amount demanded as per the notice of demand issued u/s. 156 which itself had been disputed by the appellant vide the appeal which was filed by him.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of the short- term capital gains of Rs. 54,99,950 as made by the Assessing Officer is required to be deleted since the impugned property was fully belonging to the brother of the appellant and he had declared the entire capital gain arising on its sale in his return of income.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of the amount of Rs. 44,00,500 as unexplained investment of the appellant under Section 69 is required to be deleted since the impugned investment in the property was fully made by the brother of the appellant out of his own sources.”
The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income claiming that no income chargeable to tax is earned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has entered into transaction of purchase to the tune of Rs. 88,01,000/- and sale to the tune of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- towards a property based on the information received from Sub-