PRASANNA PURUSHOTTAM MAJALIKAR,GOA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD, PANAJI, PANAJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 216/PAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 August 2026AY 2020-214 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The Tribunal found that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 7.55 lakhs in cash from his bank account prior to the property purchase. This withdrawal, along with regular income, was sufficient to explain the cash payment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, purchased an immovable property for Rs. 18.80 lakhs, paying Rs. 12 lakhs by cheque and Rs. 6.80 lakhs in cash. The Assessing Officer made an addition for the unexplained cash payment.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash payment for the purchase of an immovable property was sufficiently explained by the assessee's bank withdrawals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, ‘SMC’ PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Bansal
For Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble
Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘SMC’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘SMC’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5.

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji/ ITAT, Panaji

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →