Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition made by the AO. The AO had reopened the case for AY 2018-19 as the assessee had not filed a return of income, but later filed admitting income from other sources. Information regarding significant financial transactions, including the purchase of an immovable property for Rs. 2,48,70,059, was flagged. The AO added 50% of the property cost as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus by providing details and documents, including her husband's ITR, bank statements, loan sanction letters, and payment details, which demonstrated that the property purchase and payments were made by her husband from his own sources. The Commissioner had rightly deleted the addition.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO for unexplained investment in immovable property is justified when the assessee provided evidence of payment by her husband.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 250, 194A, 69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal by the Revenue Department and the Cross objection by the Assessee have been preferred against the order dated 10.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. we observe that an information was flagged on NMS module of insight portal to the effect that the Assessee has entered into following financial transactions during the Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19:
Information Description Source Amount (Rs.)
TDS Statement – Interest PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK 33,083/- other than interest on ANUSHAKTI NAGAR securities (Section 194A) Purchase by any person of JOINT SUB REGISTRAR 2,48,70,059/- immovable property (MSD) BORIVALI 2 TDS Statement - Interest PUNJAB NATIONAL 1,04,432/- other than interest on BANK, securities (Section 194A) CIRCLE MUMBAI CITY TDS Statement – Interest HDFC BANK LIMITED 1,29,774/- other than interest on securities (Section 194A) TOTAL 2,51,37,348/-
On verifying such information on e-filing portal, the Assessing Officer (AO) had observed that the Assessee has not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19, hence no assessment was made. As the Assessee did not file income tax return for the year under consideration, it is established that the amount of 2,51,37,348/- has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid and it is clear that the source of above mentioned transactions remained unexplained.
Consequently, the AO while recording the reasons for reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act, reopened the case by issuing a notice dated 30.03.2022 u/s 148 of the Act.
The Assessee in response, filed her return of income on dated 26.05.2022 admitting income of Rs.2,67,290/- under “income from other sources”.
Thereafter, various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee replied and claimed that the purchase of property for an amount of Rs.2,48,70,059/- is in the joint name of herself and her husband Shri Suyash Kumar Purwar and all the payments were made by her husband only.
The AO in order to verify aforesaid claim of the Assesses, show caused the Assessee by issuing a notice dated 03.03.2023 “as to why the assessment should not be completed based on the details available with the Department”. As per AO the Assessee did not furnish any payment details to substantiate her claim relating to her payment made by her husband and therefore, he by holding “that in the absence of evidences to substantiate the payment, it is proposed to add Rs.1,24,35,029.50 (50% of Rs.2,48,70,059.00) as unaccounted investment in her hand for the A.Y. 2018- 19”, ultimately made the addition of Rs.1,24,35,029.50 being un-explained investment in purchase of property u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and at the outset, has submitted/contended that though she has filed the replies before the AO, however he considered none. The Assessee also filed various submissions with regard to the immovable property in question and also provided the details of payment made to the builder and source of payment, which read as under:
Date of payment Amount Rs. Paid by Source debit in Bank 31.03.2016 2,08,700 Suyash Standard Chartered Bank A/c No. Purwar 22310244699; Paid from salaries (spouse) reed from Halliburton
02.05.2016 23,86,492 Suyash Standard Chartered Bank A/c Purwar No.22310244699; Paid from salaries 22310 recd from Halliburton/savings 03.06.2016 25,69,240 Suyash Standard Chartered Bank A/c Purwar No.22310244699; Paid from (spouse) salaries recd from Halliburton/savings 18.04.2017 13,25,450 Suyash Standard Chartered Bank A/c Purwar No.22310244699; Paid from (spouse) salaries recd from Halliburton/savings 1,62,36,538 SBI Housing Loan Statement and SBI Sanction Letter Attached 23,63,462 Balance Payable to Builder Total 2,50,89,882 5
The Assessee has further claimed that she had also attached the copy of ITR of her husband Shri Suyash Kumar Purwar, bank statement of her husband showing the payments made, the sanction letter of SBI and the loan statements, copies of the cheques and copy of sale deed.
The Ld. Commissioner by considering the details of payment made to the builder and source of the payment and the relevant documents pertaining to the ITR, bank statement, sanction letter, loan statements, copy of cheques pertaining to the Assessee’s husband and copy of the sale deed, ultimately construed that the Assessee has been able to explain the source of investment in the immovable property and therefore deleted the addition under consideration.
The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, challenged the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner mainly on the reason that the burden lies on the Assessee to prove the source of funds on any investment. The Assessee’s mere assumption that her husband paid for the property without corroborating any evidence, does not satisfy this burden and therefore the addition made by the AO, is liable to be restored.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances, decisions of the authorities below and the rival contentions raised by the parties. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner by filling the relevant details and documents, such as Assessee’s copy of the sale deed, Assessee’s husband’s ITR, bank statement, loan sanction letter, loan statements, copy of cheques pertaining to the Assessee’s husband, duly demonstrated the purchase of property and payments thereof made by Assessee’s husband and thus it cannot be said that the Assessee has not discharged her onus casted in law. And therefore the Ld. Commissioner by considering the above details and documents filed by the Assessee, as referred to above and by taking cognizance of the fact that the Assessee’s husband has paid the entire amount and the Assessee has been able to explain the source of investment in the immovable property, ultimately deleted the addition under consideration. Even otherwise the details of payments and documents qua property payment thereof are loud and clear that though the Assessee’s husband had purchased the property jointly but admittedly made the payments of property from his own sources and taking loan etc.. Thus, in our considered view, the Ld. Commissioner has not committed any error in deleting the addition and therefore there is no perversity, impropriety and/or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Coming to the grounds raised in Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, we observe that more or less the same are against the assessment order, which has already been annulled by deleting the addition by the Ld. Commissioner, vide impugned order, which is also affirmed by us in the Revenue’s appeal. Thus, the CO filed by the Assessee has become infructuous. Consequently, the same is dismissed being infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025.