ANITA BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), UDAIPUR, RJN-W-(720)(1), UDAIPUR

ITA 970/JODH/2025Status: HeardITAT Jodhpur10 August 2026AY 2019-2010 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 69 taxes investments based on the financial year they are made, not when legal title is acquired. Since the payments were made in FY 2017-18, the addition for AY 2019-20 was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee acquired an immovable property, making payments totaling ₹80,00,000 in November 2017. The Assessing Officer treated this as an unexplained investment under Section 69 for AY 2019-20. The CIT(A) sustained the addition, arguing that the investment was taxable in AY 2019-20 because the property registration occurred in FY 2018-19.

What were the issues?

Whether an unexplained investment made in an earlier financial year can be brought to tax in a subsequent assessment year merely because the property registration occurred in the later year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Anita Bafna ITO Ward 2(1), Flat 302, B Wing, Phirozshah Udaipur, RJN-W-(720)(1) Mehta Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400054 PAN No. AGQPJ 4129 B Assessee by V.H. Jariwala, CA (Virtual) Revenue by Prerna Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR (Physical) Date of Hearing 10 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 10 / 08 / 2026

PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, in relation to the assessment framed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee has raised various grounds, including legal grounds challenging the validity of reopening under sections 147/148 of the Act. However, one of the principal grounds urged before us, being Ground No. 6, challenges the addition of ₹80,00,000 made under section 69 of the Act on the fundamental ground that the alleged investment itself was made

2 Asst. Year: 2019-20 during Financial Year 2017-18, relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19, and there

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →