SAVITRI PREMI KESHRANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO,WD-5, PANVEL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Savitri Premi Keshrani, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income A-1703, Unnati Concept, Tax Department. Plot No.69, Sector 21, Navi Mumbai, Kharghar- 410210. PAN : CNTPK8488E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kothari & Shri Bharat Patel Revenue by : Shri Arvind Renge (Virtual) Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “Reopening of Assessment 1) The learned Income-tax Officer (ITO) erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, issuing notice dated 4th April 2022 under section 148 of the Act and thereafter, passing the assessment order dated 19th March 2024 without

2 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 appreciating that the reassessment proceeding was barred by limitation. 2) The learned ITO erred in initiation of reassessment proceedings after a period of three/six years from the end of the relevant assessment year even though the requirement of section 149(1) of the Act were not satisfied in the facts of the present case. Addition of unexplained investment u/s. 69 3) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (A) (CIT(A)) erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loan aggregating to Rs.15,00,000 u/s. 69 merely because application under Rule 46A was not filed for a few documents submitted as additional evidence. 4) The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s. 69 ignoring the fact that the amount represented unsecured loans from identified lenders. 5) The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 7,00,000 received from Ranjanben Krishnakumar Patel as unexplained investment u/s. 69 though names, addresses, PAN, confirmations, bank statements etc. and acknowledgement of return of income were submitted during assessment proceeding. 6) The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 5,00,000 received from Krishnakumar Ravjibhai Patel as unexplained investment u/s. 69 though names, addresses, PAN, confirmations, bank statements etc. and acknowledgement of return of income were submitted during assessment proceeding. 7) The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 3,00,000 received from Ekta Sushil Patel as unexplained investment u/s. 69 though names, addresses, PAN, confirmations, bank statements etc. and acknowledgement of return of income were submitted during assessment proceeding. 8) The Appellant craves, leave to add to, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if necessary.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished her return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available on insight

3 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 portal that the assessee has purchased immovable property for consideration of Rs.90 lakhs, however sources for above investment has not been disclosed by furnishing the return of income which suggest that the income represented in the form of asset has escaped assessment, therefore notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 22.03.2022 and since the assessee has not responded to the above show cause notice, order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 04.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was also issued on 04.04.2022. The assessee in response to above notice furnished her return of income on 04.05.2023 by declaring income of Rs.1,66,720. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer found that the payment of Rs.54 lakhs was made during assessment year 2014-15 and remaining payment of Rs.40 lakhs was made during assessment year 2015-16 i.e. the year under consideration. Out of above Rs.40 lakhs investments, an amount of Rs.25 lakhs was claimed to be withdrawn from partnership firm Mateshwari Realtors wherein the assessee is a partner, and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.15 lakhs was claimed to be received from 3 persons who happens to be relatives of the assessee and copy of ITR, computation of income, confirmation letters and copy of bank statements were furnished before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer accepted the

4 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 contention of the assessee regarding sources of investment of Rs.25 lakhs however did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding unsecured loan of Rs.15 lakhs obtained from 3 persons. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors is not proved therefore, he treated the investment of Rs.15 lakhs in purchase of immovable property as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Vide order dated 19.03.2024 the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.16,66,720/- as against the income of Rs.1,66,720/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.15 lakhs being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act in purchase of immovable property. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not admitted additional evidences furnished by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 6. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper books furnished by the assessee & also gone through the case laws relied on by the assessee. In this regard, we find that through ground no.1 & 2 the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings as barred by limitation in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 340 CTR 865 (SC) and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC) and Verjinia Foods Limited vs. ITO [2025] 9 NYPCTR 1510 (Bom) and through ground no.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 challenged addition of Rs.15 lakhs made u/s 69 of the IT Act. 7. With regard to ground no.3 to 7 raised by the assessee, we find that all the grounds mainly challenged the addition of Rs.15 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the IT Act. In this regard, we find that certain additional evidences were furnished by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not admit them since the assessee failed to furnish application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. We further find that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings furnished various relevant evidences regarding unsecured loans from relatives such as confirmation letters, copy of income tax returns along with computation of income and bank statements showing the

6 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 transactions. We also find that during the course of 1st appellate proceedings the assessee also furnished various evidences regarding source of source, however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the above additional evidences for technical reason that application under Rule 46A was not furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee during the assessment proceedings has produced normal required documents in support of unsecured loans which are necessary for proving the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender. When the Assessing Officer doubted the creditworthiness of the creditors the assessee again furnished various relevant documents and information before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor i.e. information regarding source of source was also furnished. After perusing the copy of written submission furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also the paper book pages starting from page no.56 to 178 wherein evidences regarding advancing of loan to the assessee were furnished, as well as source of source are also explained, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has successfully proved the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and also proved creditworthiness of the creditors who happens to be close relatives of the assessee. Apart from above, we

7 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 also find that the impugned property was purchased by the assessee jointly with her husband & not alone as understood by the Assessing Officer. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.15 lakhs made u/s 69 of the IT Act. Accordingly ground no.3 to 7 raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. With regard to ground no.1 & 2, we find that the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings as barred by limitation in the light of concession given by Ld. ASG referred in judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 340 CTR 865 (SC) and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC) and Verjinia Foods Limited vs. ITO [2025] 9 NYPCTR 1510 (Bom), and accordingly requested to quash the notice u/s 148 and reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act. In this regard, we find that in the cases relied on by the assessee the impugned notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued under old regime by taking benefit of TOLA period, however in the instant case in hand the impugned notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued under new regime after following due procedure under section 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act, therefore, the

8 ITA No.1213/PUN/2026 facts are distinguishable. Since we have already allowed the appeal on merits of the case, the legal ground no.1 & 2 raised by the assessee becomes academic, hence need not be adjudicated and they are kept open. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 04th day of September, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 04th September, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.09.08 14:14:50 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.