AMEY NAGESH RAUL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1937/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as relevant and crucial for adjudication. It set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property and an addition of Rs. 33,50,000 was made for undisclosed investment. The assessee claimed the amount was an outstanding liability and later provided additional evidence of payment by parents in a subsequent year.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for undisclosed investment was justified, and if additional evidence submitted by the assessee should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BENERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR)
Hearing: 23.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BENERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No.1937/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Amey Nagesh Paul, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.104, A-Wing, Neminath -2, Ostwal Ward 1, Palghar – 401404, Vs. Empire, Boisar, Palghar – 401501, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN NO. BICPR 7147 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Shri Darpan Jawale Assessee by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR) Department by Date of Hearing : 23.04.2026 : 28.04.2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31.12.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’) 2018-19, raising following grounds: -

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

Madanmohanlal G Arora Madanmohanlal G Arora 2 ITA No.207/MUM/2026 ITA No

2.

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by AO of Rs. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by AO of Rs. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by AO of Rs. 33,50,000/-undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the act on the alleged undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the act on the alleged undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the act on the alleged ground that the appellant in spite of giving sufficient opportunities failed ground that the appellant in spite of giving sufficient opportunities failed ground that the appellant in spite of giving sufficient opportunities failed to furnish any evidence during the to furnish any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings. course of assessment proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions & evidences 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions & evidences 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions & evidences filed before him during the appeal proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in filed before him during the appeal proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in filed before him during the appeal proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appeal order without considering the submissions filed. passing the appeal order without considering the submissions filed. passing the appeal order without considering the submissions filed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in adding Rs. 33,50,000/ CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in adding Rs. 33,50,000/- as CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in adding Rs. 33,50,000/ undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in adding an amount of Rs. 33,50,000/- despite 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in adding an amount of Rs. 33,50,000/ 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in adding an amount of Rs. 33,50,000/ the fact that the appellant had place on record all details and evidences the fact that the appellant had place on record all details and the fact that the appellant had place on record all details and and explanation regarding Status of the Transaction of the Property, and explanation regarding Status of the Transaction of the Property, and explanation regarding Status of the Transaction of the Property, Source of payment thereof during the year under consideration and Source of payment thereof during the year under consideration and Source of payment thereof during the year under consideration and Status of the balance amount of Rs. 33,50,000/ Status of the balance amount of Rs. 33,50,000/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had provided 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had various documents, information in support of his claim & explain the various documents, information in support of his claim & explain the various documents, information in support of his claim & explain the source of payment toward purchase of immovable property. source of payment toward purchase of immovable property. 7. The appellant prays for to delete entire addition made on account of 7. The appellant prays for to delete entire addition made on account of 7. The appellant prays for to delete entire addition made on account of undisclosed investment.” undisclosed investment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed a return of income for the year under individual, had not filed a return of income for the year under individual, had not filed a return of income for the year under consideration. Based on information regarding purchase of consideration. Based on information regarding purchase of consideration. Based on information regarding purchase of immovable property exceeding Rs. 1.5 crores, proceedings under immovable property exceeding Rs. 1.5 crores, proceedings under immovable property exceeding Rs. 1.5 crores, proceedings under the reassessment provisions were initiated ssessment provisions were initiated and a notice under and a notice under section 148A(b) was issued, but in view of the non section 148A(b) was issued, but in view of the non- -compliance, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022, followed by notice under section 148 of the Act. followed by notice under section 148 of the Act. In the course of In the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee, ssessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee, ssessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee, along with his parents, purchased an immovable property worth along with his parents, purchased an immovable property worth along with his parents, purchased an immovable property worth ₹1.5 crores, and payment of which was made as under: ment of which was made as under: ment of which was made as under:

Madanmohanlal G Arora Madanmohanlal G Arora 3 ITA No.207/MUM/2026 ITA No

“a. Paid through Bank Loan “a. Paid through Bank Loan -75.00,000.00 (union Bank of India) 75.00,000.00 (union Bank of India) b. Paid by Nagesh b. Paid by Nagesh Ramchandra Raul (Father) - 15,00,000.00( Through 15,00,000.00( Through saraswat Bank account ID no 39621910000000044 vide cheque no saraswat Bank account ID no 39621910000000044 vide cheque no saraswat Bank account ID no 39621910000000044 vide cheque no 46784 dated-22.11.2017. 22.11.2017. c. Paid by Pallavi Raul (Mother) c. Paid by Pallavi Raul (Mother) - 25,00,000.00 (Through SBI account no. 25,00,000.00 (Through SBI account no. 30505535917 vide cheque no 468020 Dated 30505535917 vide cheque no 468020 Dated-22.11.2017. d. TDS-1,50,000.00.” 1,50,000.00.”

3.

The assessee further explain The assessee further explained to the AO that Rs. 33,50,000/ that Rs. 33,50,000/- was outstanding and not paid to the builder, outstanding and not paid to the builder, even upto the date of even upto the date of filing submission before the AO during assessment proceedings and filing submission before the AO during assessment proceedings and filing submission before the AO during assessment proceedings and would be paid by the be paid by the assessee’s parents. But ld AO ld AO concluded that out of the said payment of out of the said payment of Rs.1.5 crores, outstanding payment of outstanding payment of Rs. 33,50,000/- was was paid by the assessee and source of such payment was not explained. was not explained. In view of non-compliance, the compliance, the Assessing Officer made an addition made an addition for the undisclosed investment for the undisclosed investment of Rs.33,50,000/- towards towards the purchase of immovable property in the purchase of immovable property in his order u/s 147 dated 147 dated 29.03.2022.

4.

In appeal, the assessee contended that the property in In appeal, the assessee contended that the property in In appeal, the assessee contended that the property in question was primarily acquired by his parents, and that his name question was primarily acquired by his parents, and that his name question was primarily acquired by his parents, and that his name was included in the title documents merely for the sake of was included in the title documents merely for the sake of was included in the title documents merely for the sake of convenience and future security. It was further explained that the convenience and future security. It was further explained that the convenience and future security. It was further explained that the impugned amount of Rs. 33,50,000/ amount of Rs. 33,50,000/- represented an outstanding represented an outstanding liability payable to the builder and had not been paid during the liability payable to the builder and had not been paid during the liability payable to the builder and had not been paid during the

Madanmohanlal G Arora Madanmohanlal G Arora 4 ITA No.207/MUM/2026 ITA No

relevant previous year. However, the learned CIT(A), being relevant previous year. However, the learned CIT(A), being relevant previous year. However, the learned CIT(A), being unconvinced with the explanation and observing that the assessee unconvinced with the explanation and observing that the assessee unconvinced with the explanation and observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source and status of the said amount substantiate the source and status of the said amount substantiate the source and status of the said amount with cogent evidence, p with cogent evidence, proceeded to uphold the addition roceeded to uphold the addition observing as under:

“The appellant in response on 30 The appellant in response on 30-09-2024 filed his father's P&L and 2024 filed his father's P&L and balance sheet and purchase agreement and form 16 issued by his balance sheet and purchase agreement and form 16 issued by balance sheet and purchase agreement and form 16 issued by employer M/s VFS Global Services Ltd. However, the appellant failed to employer M/s VFS Global Services Ltd. However, the appellant failed to employer M/s VFS Global Services Ltd. However, the appellant failed to produce details regarding the outstanding amount of Rs.33.50,000/-. The produce details regarding the outstanding amount of Rs.33.50,000/ produce details regarding the outstanding amount of Rs.33.50,000/ appellant did not reveal the status of balance payment as he had claimed appellant did not reveal the status of balance payment as he had claimed appellant did not reveal the status of balance payment as he had claimed the same would be settled by the ap the same would be settled by the appellant's parents. The appellant had pellant's parents. The appellant had only claimed the appellant's name was included solely for the purpose of only claimed the appellant's name was included solely for the purpose of only claimed the appellant's name was included solely for the purpose of co-ownership and to establish legal entitlement in the future. Thus, the ownership and to establish legal entitlement in the future. Thus, the ownership and to establish legal entitlement in the future. Thus, the onus is upon the appellant to explain the nature and source of the alleged onus is upon the appellant to explain the nature and source of the allege onus is upon the appellant to explain the nature and source of the allege transaction of Rs.33,50,000/ transaction of Rs.33,50,000/- in which the appellant failed to do so. The in which the appellant failed to do so. The deeming provisions of Section 68 and 69A give powers to the Assessing deeming provisions of Section 68 and 69A give powers to the Assessing deeming provisions of Section 68 and 69A give powers to the Assessing Officer to deem any credit in the books of accounts or money which is not Officer to deem any credit in the books of accounts or money which is not Officer to deem any credit in the books of accounts or money which is not recorded in the books of accounts wh recorded in the books of accounts when the assessee does not offer any en the assessee does not offer any explanation explanation explanation or documentary or documentary or documentary evidences evidences evidences substantiating substantiating substantiating the the the entire entire entire transactions. In view of the above discussions, the ground Nos.1, 2, 4 transactions. In view of the above discussions, the ground Nos.1, 2, 4 transactions. In view of the above discussions, the ground Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 raised by the appellant are dismissed and the addition made by and 5 raised by the appellant are dismissed and the addition made by and 5 raised by the appellant are dismissed and the addition made by the AO is confirmed.” ”

5.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned amount of Rs. 33,50,000/ the impugned amount of Rs. 33,50,000/- has, in fact, been has, in fact, been discharged in the subsequent assessment year through banking discharged in the subsequent assessment year through banking discharged in the subsequent assessment year through banking channels by the assessee’s parents, and that documentary channels by the assessee’s parents, and that documentary channels by the assessee’s parents, and that documentary evidences substantiating the same have now been brought on s substantiating the same have now been brought on s substantiating the same have now been brought on record by way of an application for admission of additional record by way of an application for admission of additional record by way of an application for admission of additional evidence. It was contended that such evidence goes to the root of evidence. It was contended that such evidence goes to the root of evidence. It was contended that such evidence goes to the root of the controversy and is essential for proper adjudication of the issue. the controversy and is essential for proper adjudication of the issue. the controversy and is essential for proper adjudication of the issue.

Madanmohanlal G Arora Madanmohanlal G Arora 5 ITA No.207/MUM/2026 ITA No

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the ve considered the rival submissions and perused the ve considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The additional evidences sought to be material available on record. The additional evidences sought to be material available on record. The additional evidences sought to be adduced by the assessee are prima facie relevant and have a direct adduced by the assessee are prima facie relevant and have a direct adduced by the assessee are prima facie relevant and have a direct bearing on the core issue, namely, the nature and source of the bearing on the core issue, namely, the nature and source of the bearing on the core issue, namely, the nature and source of the alleged investment of Rs. 33,50,000/ ed investment of Rs. 33,50,000/-. It is also noted that such . It is also noted that such evidences were not placed before the lower authorities, and the evidences were not placed before the lower authorities, and the evidences were not placed before the lower authorities, and the assessee has explained the circumstances for such omission. In the assessee has explained the circumstances for such omission. assessee has explained the circumstances for such omission. interest of justice, and to ensure that the matter is adjudicated on interest of justice, and to ensure that the matter is adjudicate interest of justice, and to ensure that the matter is adjudicate the basis of complete and relevant material, we deem it appropriate the basis of complete and relevant material, we deem it appropriate the basis of complete and relevant material, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidences. However, since these evidences to admit the additional evidences. However, since these evidences to admit the additional evidences. However, since these evidences require verification and examination at the level of the Assessing require verification and examination at the level of the Assessing require verification and examination at the level of the Assessing Officer, it would be appropriate to restore the matter for fresh Officer, it would be appropriate to restore the ma Officer, it would be appropriate to restore the ma consideration.

6.1 Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) to the Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) to the Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) to the extent of addition of Rs. 33,50,000/ extent of addition of Rs. 33,50,000/- is set aside, and the issue is set aside, and the issue relating to the addition of Rs. 33,50,000/ relating to the addition of Rs. 33,50,000/- is restored to the file of is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine the The Assessing Officer shall examine the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, afford a reasonable additional evidences furnished by the assessee, afford a reasonable additional evidences furnished by the assessee, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and thereafter decide the issue afresh in opportunity of being heard, and thereafter decide the issue afresh in opportunity of being heard, and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. accordance with law. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. r statistical purposes.

Madanmohanlal G Arora Madanmohanlal G Arora 6 ITA No.207/MUM/2026 ITA No

7.

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assessee of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026. /04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BENERJEE ANIKESH BENERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/04/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →