VAIBHAV MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(5), NOIDA, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5950/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2026AY 2013-144 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 held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements, to support the source of funds from the sale of the inherited property. The claim of a valid source for the investment could not be denied.

What were the facts?

The assessee's investment in a property was treated as unexplained. The assessee claimed the funds came from the sale of his deceased father's property, which he and his mother inherited and sold.

What were the issues?

Whether the investment in a new property was adequately explained by the sale proceeds of a previously owned property, and if the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Narender Arora, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, CIT-DR
Hearing: 05/02/2026Pronounced: 24/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5950/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) Vaibhav Mishra, Income Tax Officer, 2/49, Vishal Khand, Ward-5(2)(5), Gomtinagar, Niralanagar, Vs. Noida. Uttar Pradesh-226020. PAN-BLDPM3364C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narender Arora, CA Department by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 05/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 24/04/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A) in short], dated 05.03.2024 in Appeal No. 56/2016-17/Noida, arising out of the order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) dated 18.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts are that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and since, the assessee filed to make compliance to any notice issued, the investment made in purchase of immovable property for Rs.1,93,11,000/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act, and additions for the same was made.

2 ITA No.5950/Del/2024 Vaibhaw Mishra vs. ITO 3. Against the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.11.2018 allowed the appeal of the assessee by accepting the contention of the assessee that he alongwith his mother had sold the property owned by his deceased father for Rs.1,88,00,000/- and utilized the sale proceeds to buy another property jointly with his younger brother.

4.

Against the said order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT, wherein the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.11.2022 in ITA No.4246/Del/2019 had allowed the appeal of the revenue and remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to follow the procedure under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”), as the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by admitting the additional evidences without confronting the same to the AO. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) in set aside proceedings sought remand report from the Assessing Officer on the documents filed by the assessee. In the remand report, the AO stated that no additional evidences were submitted by the assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the fact that all the documents relied upon by his predecessor in first round of the proceedings were already filed before the AO and after appreciating the same appeal of the assessee was allowed in first round, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that no documentary evidences were filed in support of the claim made by the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, sole issue of dispute is with respect to the source of investment in acquisition

3 ITA No.5950/Del/2024 Vaibhaw Mishra vs. ITO of the new property by the assessee jointly with his mother and younger brother. The claim of the assessee was that after the death of his father, assessee along with his mother has sold the property owned by his father which was received by them under inheritance. The sale proceeds from such sale were utilized to buy new property jointly with his mother and younger brother Shri Abhinav Mishra. The assessee has purchased the new property within the statutory time limit provided under the Act from the sale of old property and, therefore, exemption u/s 54 of the Act was claimed out of the capital gains earned from the sale of other property. It is further observed that in the case of mother of the assessee entire transactions was considered and accepted in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by DCIT, Range Lucknow vide order dated 21.12.2015, copy of the same is placed before us.

7.

After considering these facts, in the first round, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee, however, in set aside proceedings Ld. CIT(A) though obtained remand report from the Assessing Officer wherein the AO has categorically admitted that no additional evidence was filed by the assessee which is evident from the observation of Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3 of its order but without considering the details so available, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

8.

Since, the assessee has filed all the details with respect to the sale of the property jointly with his mother and purchased new property and further filed copy of the bank statements wherein the sale consideration was duly credited as deposits as well as the payment made for acquisition of new property are also appearing as withdrawals. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that he has a valid source for making investment in new property in the shape of sale consideration received from the sale of the property owned by his father cannot be denied. In view of these facts,

4 ITA No.5950/Del/2024 Vaibhaw Mishra vs. ITO we hereby allowed all the grounds of the assessee and deleted the additions so sustained by Ld. CIT(A) in the set aside order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- /- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.04.2026. *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →