RASHMI ANUP SOLANKE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-1(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 477/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's husband, a Non-Resident working in Dubai, had provided funds from his salary income deposited in bank accounts. The Tribunal was satisfied that the alleged investment was sourced from these bank accounts.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property, but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for unexplained investment, considering a housing loan and the remaining amount as unexplained. The assessee claimed the source was her husband's salary income from Dubai.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in an immovable property is justified, considering the source of funds provided by the assessee's husband.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR SMC BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Jaya Lakhwani, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05/08/2026Pronounced: 04/09/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR "SMC" BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual)

ITA No. 477/NAG/2026 (Asst. Year : 2016-17) Rashmi Anup Solanki ITO, Ward-1(1), Nagpur. A4-102, The Greater vs Ganga Panama, Pimple Nilakh, Aundh Camp S.O., Pune-411027 PAN : AMSPD 7310 A Assessee Revenue

Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke, CA Department by : Ms. Jaya Lakhwani, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 05/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 04/09/2026

O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 25.02.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

2.

Sole grievance is against the addition of Rs. 12,72,900/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained investment u/sec. 69 of the Act.

3.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the source of the alleged investment in immovable property was the funds provided by the assessee’s husband, out of the salary income earned in Dubai. In support, he filed copy of

2 ITA No.477/PUN/2026 (Rashmi Anup Solanke) order of Ld.CIT(A), Pune-13 for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 27.01.2025 passed in the case of assessee’s husband-Mr. Anup Manoharrao Solanke.

4.

On the other hand, Ld.DR supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me. I observe that assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. Based on the information about the purchase of immovable property at Rs.63,60,200/-, re-assessment proceedings were validly carried out after issuing notices u/sec. 148, 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Assessee made partial compliance providing the source of investment in immovable property. Ld.AO, based on the submissions filed by the assessee, noticed that assessee took a housing loan of Rs.55,00,000/- from State Bank of India and concluded that to the extent of housing loan, the source of unexplained investment has been established and the remaining amount of investment at Rs. 12,72,900/- assessee failed to explain the source. In appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee failed to get any relief. Before me, learned counsel for the assessee has filed a detailed paper book running into 151 pages which also includes the order of Ld.CIT(A) passed in the case of assessee’s husband namely Mr. Anup Manoharrao Solanke for the very same A.Y. 2016-17 dated 27.01.2025 where also, one of the issues was regarding the investment in the very same house property which is subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal. I find that Ld.CIT(A), on due examination of facts, source of income of the assessee’s husband, who is Non-Resident and employed in Dubai, has observed that for purchase of immovable property, assessee took a home loan from SBI of Rs.53,95,000/- in joint name with his wife, and in addition, an

3 ITA No.477/PUN/2026 (Rashmi Anup Solanke) amount of Rs.16,00,000/- was sourced from his salary income through different bank accounts SBI and HDFC banks. I have further verified this fact from the bank statement of the assessee’s husband filed in the paper book from page Nos. 22- 130 and I am satisfied that the alleged investment of Rs. 12,72,900/- is sourced from the salary of assessee’s husband deposited in the bank account and that the alleged investment has been made out of this bank accounts only. Therefore, since the assessee has successfully explained the source of alleged investment of Rs. 12,72,900/-, therefore, no addition deserves to be made. Accordingly, finding of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the impugned addition of Rs.12,72,900/- stands deleted. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 04th September, 2026 under Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune & Dated : 04th Sept., 2026 vr/- Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. PCIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File BY ORDER Vukkem Digitally signed by Vukkem //True Copy// Rambabu Rambabu Date: 2026.09.07 13:18:11 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →