GAURAV SEHGAL ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 24.02.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.

“1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,80,23,430/- as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the above ground of appeal.” The assessee has subsequently revised the grounds of appeal, which are as under:

“1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining te addition of Rs. 2,80,23,430/- as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act although the are investments recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee and the assessee has offered explanation about. the source of investments. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the above ground of appeal.”

In response to this notice, no return was e-filed. Subsequently, the assessee filed a belated manual return declaring income of Rs. 51.66lacs.

However, ld. AO issued notices u/s. 142(1) to the assessee to explain the sources of investment in the purchase of property. As no response was received to the final show-cause notice dated 22.03.2022, ld. AO completed the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B adding the sum of Rs. 2,80,23,430/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69C of the Act computed as under:

Total Ground 10.26cr Less: Bank Loan 5.00cr Balance 5.26cr After adding brokerage, 50% share of the assessee comes to Rs. 2,80,23,430/-

“5. Analysis and Decision: 5.1 I have duly considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, assessment order, written submissions of the appellant and the material placed on record. 5.2 The Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has noted that the assessee has not filed any valid return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has claimed that he had filed a manual return of income u/s 139 on 28.08.2015 (after expiry of the due date) and sent the same through speed post to the Assessing Officer, ACIT-31(1), Mumbai. The AO has concluded that it is not a valid return of income as filed after due date and also violates the conditions laid out in CBDT Notification No. 34/2013 dated 01.05.2013. 5.3 The AO mentions that the assessee has deposited cash in savings bank account of Rs. 27,77,500/- and has received professional / technical fee of Rs. 48,00,000/-during the year. The AO further noted that the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on 23.03.2021. Further, the AO noted that assessee submitted that he has filed manual return of income on 04.02.2022 admitting taxable income of Rs. 51,66,590/-. The AO has noted that as per CBDT Notification dated 01.05.2013, a person having total income more than Rs. 5 lakh is allowed to file return of income for the AY 2013-14 through electronic mode only. The AO has disposed the objections raised by assessee for reopening by an speaking order. 5.4 The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 2,80,23,430/- u/s 69 of the Act. The AO has noted that an immovable property of Rs. 9,50,00,000/- was purchased by the appellant with his wife as co-owner. The total investment in the property aggregates to Rs. 10,26,35,930/-. The appellant contended that he and his wife had obtained a loan of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- from bank. Further, he has made payments of Rs. 2,13,87,500/- as his share in the purchase of immovable property and has paid Rs. 66,35,930/- towards stamp duty brokerage etc. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 142(1) on 04.03.2022 requesting certain details of the investment and a final show cause notice on 22.03.2022. Admittedly, no response was filed by the appellant to the show cause notice, therefore, addition u/s 69 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer to the returned income u/s 148 of Rs. 51,66,790/-. 5.5 It is observed during the appeal proceedings that the appellant with his wife as co-applicant has received a loan of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- from the Axis Bank. The bank account statement reflects that total disbursement of loan by bank is Rs. 5,07,93000/- on 01.06.2012 The appellant has not explained the source of his income and that of his wife. 5.6 For the balance amount of Rs. 2,80,23,430/- paid to the sellers of the property and for stamp duty and other charges, the appellant claims that these have been made from his bank account in Union Bank of India and Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank. It is noted that the copy of the bank statement of the Union Bank of India for the account number 14685, the bank account is in the joint name of Shri Gaurav Sehgal and Shri Praveen Chand Sehgal. The relationship with Shri Praveen Chand Sehgal has not been explained by the appellant. Further, it is noted that before any payments made for the property there are receipts reflected in the bank account from various parties and also deposits in cash. The appellant has failed to explain the source of these deposits / credits in his joint bank account. They have not been explained before the Assessing Officer nor during the appeal proceedings. Merely submitting the bank account without explaining the source of deposits in it will not amount to discharge of burden of proof by the appellant. Further, the bank account referred in the Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank is in the name of M/s Ganpati Enterprises and it is a current account. Only one page of this bank statement is submitted and the earlier entries are not known. Why this current account of Ganpati Enterprises is used to pay for the personal investment in the property has also not been explained. The source of deposits in this bank account are not explained by the appellant. The appellant has not submitted the copy of documents claimed to have been submitted before the Assessing Officer. Only the two-page written submission dated 03.03.2022 was submitted during the appeal. 5.7 Thus, it is clear that the appellant has failed to explain satisfactorily, the source of investment in the property. Neither the copy of balance sheet and source of income has been produced during the appeal proceedings. The appellant has been casual in providing the explanation. In view of the above discussion, I find that the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are therefore, dismissed.” Aggrieved by ld. CIT(A)’s order, the assessee is now in appeal before us.

5. At the outset, it is seen that ld. AR has submitted an application for filing additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules which consists of loan confirmations from 7 parties. Ld. DR has opposed the admission of additional evidence at this stage, pointing out that the assessee did not filed any evidence before the lower authorities as has been discussed in detail in the order of the ld. CIT(A).

280,23,430/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. As requisite documentary evidences have been filed before us for the first time, and these have been admitted, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the jurisdictional AO for fresh decision on merits after examining the evidences filed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 30.10.2025