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

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

Faceles
Rs.47,5
Act, 19
3. On fac learned
Faceles of ded
Income
4. On fac learned
Faceles charge
Income
2. Briefly stated, t not file her regula consideration. Conse filer by the Income-t
Income-tax Act, 196
issued. No complianc
2.1 A specific infor made investment in 10th Floor, Neelam C
Andheri (West), Mum
2.2 Considering the the ld. Assessing Offi the Act on 10.02.202
of investment.
Th
Accordingly, order un
ITA ss Appeal Centre erred in confirming
54,000/- u/s 69 r w s 115BBE of the I
961 as unexplained investment.
cts, in circumstances of the case and i d Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal ss Appeal Centre erred in confirming di duction of Rs.12,873/- under Chapter e Tax Act, 1961. cts, in circumstances of the case and i d Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal ss Appeal Centre ought to have delet ed of u/s 234A and u/s 234B e Tax Act, 1961. the facts of the case are that t ar return of income for th equently, the assessee was iden ax Department and statutory n
61 (hereinafter referred to as ce thereto was made.
rmation was received that the an immovable property, namely
CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 11
mbai, amounting to ₹94,85,601/- e non-filing of return and the s icer (AO) issued notice under se
23, providing opportunity to exp he assessee, however, failed nder section 148A(d) of the Act
Vilasben Purohit
2
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
addition of Income Tax in law, the ls, National isallowance
VI-A of the in law, the ls, National ted interest
B of the he assessee did he year under ntified as a non- notice under the “the Act”) was e assessee had y Flat No. 1002,
15, Model Town,
-.
said investment, ection 148A(b) of plain the source d to respond.
t was passed on 13.03.2023 and noti date, after obtaining
2.3 In response, th
12.04.2023 declaring
Thereafter, notice un upon the assessee to In reply, the assesse wholly owned by her merely as a “nomin salaried employee, w
Covid-19, had made savings, retirement b death.
2.4 The AO, howev deed from Joint Regi
133(6) and found th reflected as joint pu noted that the public incomplete and faile claimed. Further, the regarding payment m
Purohit was found i agreement, as substa much after the stipu
ITA ce under section 148 was issu requisite approval of the specifie he assessee filed her return g income from other sources nder section 142(1) of the Act wa explain the source of the afores ee submitted that the property i late husband, and that her nam nee”. It was explained that h who unfortunately expired in M e almost the entire payment f benefits, and LIC proceeds rec ver, obtained copy of the regis istrar stamp duty through notic hat both the assessee and her urchasers, each with 50% shar c provident fund (PPF) statemen ed to establish withdrawal of ₹
e payment schedule furnished made by her late husband Mr.
inconsistent with the terms o antial payments were shown to h ulated period. The Assessing Of Vilasben Purohit
3
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
ued on the same ed authority.
of income on of ₹4,01,250/-.
as issued calling said investment.
in question was me was reflected her husband, a May 2021 due to from his salary ceived upon his stered purchase ce under section r husband were re. The AO also nt produced was ₹23,33,197/- as by the assessee
Jayant Amritlal f the registered have been made fficer noted that as per the sale agreem
15 days from the e details submitted by after five years of th investment remain reconciliation, the A investment attributab
, remained unexplain and accordingly mad
115BBE for unexplai
“In this case,
Floor, Neelam
Andheri Wes husband Shri
90,00,000/-
Rs.94,85,601
The assessee
95,08,000/- [
duty+30,000
28.08.2023 h for the said f husband as ownership). H nominee.
On perusal wrong. Own agreement w share i.e. 50%
of investmen offered any source of such unexplained i not been offer
ITA ment complete payment was to execution of the agreement wh the assessee made payment of he execution of the agreement unexplained. In the absen
AO concluded that source of ble to the assessee, amounting ned within the meaning of sectio de addition under section 69 re ined investment observing as un the assessee had purchased a Flat No.
m CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, M t Mumbai-400053 on 30.03.2016 jointl i Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consider stamp duty has been charged on th
/-.
e was asked to submit source of investm
[90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78
registry charges). The assessee vide r has stated that she has not contributed flat, whole purchase consideration was p the flat was wholly owned by h
Her name was mentioned in the agreemen of agreement, contention of the asses nership share has not been mention which means both husband and wife h
% each. Further the assessee failed to exp t of her husband also. As the assesse acceptable and cogent explanation reg h investment. Hence, assessee's share is investment. The income earned during th red and taxes due there upon has not bee
Vilasben Purohit
4
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
be made within hereas payment f Rs.48,85,000/- t and source of nce of proper
50% share of to ₹47,54,000/- on 69 of the Act, ead with section nder:
1002, 10th
Model Town, ly with her ration of Rs.
he value of ment of Rs.
,000 stamp reply dated any funds paid by her him (100%
nt only as a ssee found ned in the have equal plain source ee has not garding the s treated as he year has en paid.

In the backgr source of inv
47,54,000/-(5
as per the se addition of Rs of the IT Act a 3. In appeal, the payments asserting husband’s resources
The Ld. CIT(A) exa discrepancies. He o through accounts oth husband; certain pay assessee and daugh proceeds or loans fr verifiable documents assessee had failed investment of her hu
AO’s action in treatin as unexplained inves
CIT(A) is reproduced
Date
Amt
17-Sep-14
24,30,000
ITA round of the facts and circumstances sta vestment in immovable property amoun
50% share of Rs.95,08,000/-) remain u ection 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. s. 47,54,000/-has been made u/s 69 r.w and added to the total income of the asse assessee furnished a detaile that ₹96,21,000/- had been m and ₹2,34,000/- had been con amined the bank transaction observed that several paymen her than the disclosed pension yments were made from joint ac hter; some were claimed to rom relatives, but were not co s. The CIT(A) therefore concl d to satisfactorily establish t usband as well. Consequently, ng the assessee’s 50% share, i.e stment. The relevant analysis d as under:
Explanation by the appellant
Anal
This is Mr. Jayant account
Mr. Jayant A of the appel
Municipal
C
Mumbai "MC service 201
submitted th pension bene no. 0051101
observed th made throug
0051101000
Vilasben Purohit
5
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
ated above, nting to Rs.
unexplained
Hence, an w.s. 115BBE essee.”
d statement of made out of her ntributed by her.
ns but noticed ts were routed n account of the ccounts with the be out of LIC rroborated with luded that the the sources of , he upheld the ., ₹47,54,000/-, done by the Ld.
lysis & decision
Amrital Purohit, husband lant was employed with Corporation of Greater
CGM" and retired from 3. The appellant had he account details of his efit for Bank of India a/c
100046228 However it is hat this payment was gh Bank of India a/c no 046237. Thus the source

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 of this payme
This is the pension account of Mr. Jayant
The appella payment was account out
The pension alc for Ba
0051101000
observed th made throug
0168121100
of this payme

This is Mr. Jayant account
It is observed made throug
9210010000
appellant h source of su source of verifiable.
This is Mr. Jayant account
It is observed made throug
9210010000
appellant h source of su source of verifiable.
This is salary account of Mr.
Jayant
The appella payment was account out
The pension a/c for Ba
0051101000
observed th submitted th date 09.02.2
has been ma the appella explained th
Thus the s is not verifia
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 appellan
SB paymen proceeds rec bank a/c NK
0921001000
they transfe account N
074 and for purcha made. The tenable without documents statement.
dispute that had received
Vilasben Purohit
6
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
ent is not verifiable.
ant had submitted the s made from his husband of his pension benefit.
benefit had received in ank of India a/c no.
046228 However it is hat this payment was h Bank of India a/c no 000211. Thus the source ent is not verifiable.
d that this payment was gh Bank NKGSB a/c no 00074

However the had not explained the uch payment. Thus the this payment is not d that this payment was gh Bank NKGSB a/c no 00074

However the had not explained the uch payment. Thus the this payment is not ant had submitted the s made from his husband of his pension benefit.
benefit had received in ank of India a/c no.
046228. However it is hat the appellant had e bank statement only till
2015 but the payment ade on 17 March 2015, ant had not able to he source of payment.
source of this payment able.
nt had submitted the t was made from ceived out of LIC policy in KGSB account bank
000089 and thereafter erred in another
NKGSB 092100100000
from there the payment se of property had appellant's claim is not because the claim is any supporting along with bank
There is no t the proceeds from LIC d but this proceeds has 16-May-13
1,17,000/-
26-Jun-13
1,17,000/-
4. We have careful material on record. It purchased jointly in a total consideration share in the proper source of said 50%
been that the purcha her late husband ou and LIC proceeds, an ITA the bank account been utilized property n
But the appe bank stateme for bank alc no. 00511
the credit genuineness related to da not prove statement e daughter appellant ha evidences
Therefore payment is 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 appellan document of law to claim. The genuineness transaction
Law has no statement e
Brother in La of this payme
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 appellan document of in law to su credit worthi the loan tran in Law has n statement e
Brother in La payment of is lly heard the rival submissions a t is not in dispute that the flat the name of the assessee and h of ₹95,08,000/-. the assessee w rty and therefore, was asked
. The assessee’s explanation t ase consideration was funded pr ut of salary savings, retirement nd that her role was limited. Th
Vilasben Purohit
7
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
d for purchasing this needs bank statements.
ellant had submitted ent for limited period only of Bank of India a/c
10100046228. Further worthiness and of the loan transaction aughter Hemali has ed. No ITR Banks etc.
has submitted of Hemali. Further the ad also not submitted any for accumulated fund the source of this s not verifiable.
nt has not produced the f loan taken from brother substantiate its credit worthiness and of the loan related to Brother ot proved. No ITR Banks etc.
has submitted of aw. Therefore the source ent is not verifiable.
nt has not produced the f loan taken from brother ubstantiate its claim. The iness and genuineness of nsaction related to Brother not proved. No ITR Banks etc.
has submitted of aw. Therefore the source s this not verifiable.
and perused the in question was her husband for was having 50%
to explain the throughout has redominantly by t dues, pension, he record further shows that assessee payments, but the CI that certain bank ac transactions were m documents for LIC pr were not fully produc
4.1 It is also not payments, but he fai own limited contribu the entire 50% sh examining the eviden the finding that the d income cannot by its the actual source accounts.
4.2 Before us, the assessee is willing t sources as pointed ou
4.3 Having regard t purchaser (assessee’
assessee that she is such as bank state details, we are of th
ITA e had, before the CIT(A), furni
IT(A) rejected the same primarily counts were not properly expla made from joint accounts, and roceeds, alleged loans, and accu ced.
ted that while the CIT(A) an iled to properly adjudicate upon ution of ₹2,34,000/-, and summ hare of investment as unexp ntiary worth of each source in daughter of the assessee was no elf be determinative, in absence of deposits and transfers int
Ld. counsel for the assessee to file all necessary documents ut by the Ld. CIT(A).
to the peculiar facts, the death
’s husband), and the consisten s willing to produce all suppor ements, LIC proceeds and ret he considered opinion that in Vilasben Purohit
8
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
ished details of y on the ground ained, that some that supporting umulated funds nalysed certain n the assessee’s marily confirmed plained without detail. Further, ot filing return of e of enquiry into to the relevant submitted that s in support of h of the primary nt stand of the rting documents tirement benefit the interest of substantial justice, o assessee to substanti
4.4 Accordingly, we impugned issue and examine afresh the e assessee regarding so The assessee is direc documents includin proceeds, retirement pointed out in impug then pass a speaki hearing to the assess
5. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 22/09/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
ITA one more opportunity ought to b iate her explanation.
e set aside the order of the restore the matter to his file wit entire evidences that may be fu ources of payment for the purch cted to fully co-operate and furn ng complete bank statemen t benefits, and loan confirmat gned order by the ld Cit(A). The ing order after affording due see.
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 22/0
/- CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA

Vilasben Purohit
9
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
be granted to the CIT(A) on the th a direction to urnished by the hase of property.
nish all relevant ts, LIC policy tions, if any as e ld CIT(A) shall opportunity of is allowed for 09/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Vilasben Purohit
10
A No. 4879/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai