NIPUL VINAYKANT TOLIA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to examine the documentary evidence and explanations furnished by the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and furnish relevant documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-resident, made an investment in immovable property using funds from his NRE account, claiming it was income earned outside India. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained investment, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly appreciating the explanation.
What were the issues?
Whether the investment in immovable property made by a non-resident from NRE account funds, representing income earned outside India, is taxable in India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR
PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 11.02.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17, arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
Inspite of issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. This appeal is disposed off after hearing the Ld. DR.
On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making an addition of ₹80,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property, besides additions of ₹8,432/- and ₹7,334/-. We observed that the assessee is a non-resident and had furnished replies before the Assessing Officer explaining that the investment in the immovable property was made out of funds transferred from his NRE account representing income accrued and arisen outside India and, therefore, was not chargeable to tax in India. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly appreciating the explanation and supporting documents furnished by the assessee.
We further observe that the assessee had furnished certain explanations before the Assessing Officer stating that the investment in the property was made out of funds transferred from the NRE account representing income earned outside India. The Ld. CIT(A), however, upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall examine the documentary evidence and explanations to be furnished by the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the relevant documents as may be called for by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/07/2026
Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 10/07/2026 Prabhat Copy to: NIPUL VINAYKANT TOLIA, 6 JAYA APARTMENT ,232 R B MEHTA MARG NEAR PATEL CHOWK 1 GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400077, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(2)(1), MUMBAI, ROOM NO 413 ,4TH FLOOR, 4TH FLOOR, 2 TOWER NO.6, VASHI STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026