NIRAV JITENDRA JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(2), MUMBAI

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2018-19 arising out of assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with his wife Mrs. Vaishakhi Jhaveri had purchased an immovable property being residential flat at Lodha Venezia, Mumbai for total consideration of Rs.3,95,74,924/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that out of total consideration, housing loan of Rs.3.30 crore was jointly availed by the assessee and his wife from Kotak Mahindra Bank. However, according to the Assessing Officer, balance investment of Rs.65,74,924/- remained unexplained. Since the assessee, according to the Assessing Officer, failed to satisfactorily

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the property was jointly owned by the assessee and his wife and therefore entire addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee alone. It was further submitted that balance contribution towards acquisition of property was sourced from loans obtained from relatives, contribution from HUF and withdrawals from proprietary concern M/s Vshine Crystal. The assessee also furnished certain documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee, accepted the source to the extent of Rs.12,50,000/- being withdrawal from proprietary concern M/s Vshine Crystal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained balance addition of Rs.53,24,924/- holding that the assessee failed to substantiate complete source of investment, creditworthiness of lenders and contribution made by co-owner wife with proper documentary evidences and complete bank statements.

Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the property was jointly purchased by the assessee and his wife and therefore addition of entire alleged unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The Ld. AR submitted that substantial portion of the consideration was financed through housing loan jointly sanctioned by Kotak Mahindra Bank and balance amount was sourced through loans

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish complete documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee failed to establish identity and creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of transactions through complete bank statements and supporting evidences. The Ld. DR accordingly supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the immovable property was jointly purchased by the assessee along with his wife Mrs. Vaishakhi Jhaveri. It is also an admitted position that housing loan of Rs.3.30 crore was jointly sanctioned by Kotak Mahindra Bank and utilized towards acquisition of the property. The dispute is confined only to balance investment of Rs.65,74,924/- treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

The contention of the assessee is that out of the aforesaid balance amount, only 50% share pertained to the assessee since the property was jointly owned by husband and wife. It has further been submitted that the balance contribution was sourced from loans obtained from relatives, HUF and withdrawals from proprietary concern M/s Vshine Crystal. In support of the said contention, the assessee has

A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that partial relief of Rs.12,50,000/- was granted after accepting withdrawal from proprietary concern as explained source. However, remaining addition was sustained primarily on the ground that complete bank statements, supporting evidences regarding creditworthiness of lenders and documentary substantiation of contribution made by co-owner wife were not furnished before the lower authorities.

Before us, the assessee has placed additional documentary evidences in support of source of investment including bank statements and financial details of HUF and lending parties. Since these evidences require factual verification and examination at the end of the Assessing Officer, the issue, in our considered opinion, requires fresh adjudication.

Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. The Assessing Officer shall verify the claim regarding source of investment, contribution of co-owner wife and evidences relating to loans stated to have been obtained from relatives/HUF and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all requisite details and cooperate in the set aside proceedings. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition.