ANWESH MISHRA,PUNE vs. DCIT, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2909/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 June 2026AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the additions made by the AO. This was primarily due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to provide any evidence or explanation for their claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for property sale, home loan interest, and other exemptions. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained investment and disallowed deductions due to lack of supporting documents. The assessee failed to appear before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions for unexplained investment and disallowances of deductions were justified when the assessee failed to provide supporting documentation and appeared before the authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 10,Section 80C,Section 80D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT-DR

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23-09-2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2022-23. 2. None appeared for and/or on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing on 10-06-2026. The assessee failed to appear even on the earlier dates fixed for hearing on 16-03-2026 and 15-04-2026. However, the Ld.DR was present on all the above dates of hearings. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of the Ld.DR and the material available on record.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income for AY. 2022-23 on 17-07-2022, declaring income of Rs. 15,45,742/-. The case of the 2 assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS mainly for the reasons “Large deduction/exemption claimed u/s. 54, 54B, 54EC, 54F, 54GB etc.”. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to any of the notice(s), except on one occasion, when the assessee filed part reply in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dt. 02-01-2024. As no reply was forthcoming from the side of the assessee, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 98,92,675/- (being 50% share of the assessee in the immovable property sold by the assessee during the relevant AY under consideration) on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, observing as under:

“4.6.1 The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the reasons that assessee has claimed large deduction/exemption under section 54, 54B, 54EC, 54F, 54GB etc. The assessee during the year under consideration sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs.19,78,95,340/- under section after showing indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.48,77,948. The assessee was requested to furnish the sale deeds, purchase deeds and other supporting documents in support of the same. The assessee furnished sale agreement dated 12.10.2021 for a consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-, copy of purchase agreement for a consideration of Rs.40,62,495/- dated 19.12.2016. The assessee also furnished an agreement dated 14.10.2021 for purchase of flat for a consideration of Rs. 1,97,85,350/-. On perusal of these agreements, it is noted that assessee is having one half share in all these properties but as per ITR he has claimed whole sale consideration, cost of acquisition and deduction in his ITR only. Therefore, the assessee should have claimed deduction of Rs.98,92,675/-(1/2 of 19785350) and accordingly, the deduction claimed under section 54/548/54F etc is reduced to Rs.98,92,675/- instead of Rs. 1,97,85,350/- and balance deduction claimed The assessee was requested to furnish at Rs. 98,92,675/- is hereby disallowed. the source of investment of Rs.1,97,85,350/- in the purchase of property vide agreement dated 14.10.2021. But the assessee failed to furnish any reply. As the assessee is having half share in this property therefore, source of investment of assessee's share at Rs.98,92,675/- remained unexplained. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 98,92,675/- is hereby added back to the taxable income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act treating the same as unexplained investment which is to be charged at special rates as per section 115BBE of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act are also initiated in this regard.”

4.

The Ld.AO also made an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of the home loan interest for the reason that the assessee failed to furnish the 3 supporting documents for claiming the said deduction. He further made an addition aggregating to Rs. 9,03,201/- (comprising of disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 10 of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,78,201/-, u/s. 80C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and u/s. 80D of the Act amounting to Rs. 75,000/-). The Ld.AO, therefore, completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,25,41,618/-, thereby making the aforesaid additions vide his order dt. 08-03-2024. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, there was non-compliance of notice of hearing issued on 04-09-2025 and the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the above additions made by the Ld.AO, observing as under:

“2. The grounds of appeal object to addition of Rs.98,92,675/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 rws 115BBE. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the reasons that assessee has claimed large deduction/exemption under section 54, 548, 54EC, 54F,54GB etc. The assessee during the year under. consideration sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- and claimed deduction ofRs. 19,78,95,340/- under section after showing indexed cost of acquisition ofRs.48,77,948. The assessee was requested to furnish the sale deeds, purchase deeds and other supporting documents in support of the same. The assessee furnished sale agreement dated 12.10.2021 for a consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-copy of purchase agreement for a consideration of Rs.40,62,495/- dated 19.12.2016. The assessee also furnished an agreement dated 14.10.2021 for purchase of flat for a consideration of Rs.1,97,85,350/-. On perusal of these agreements, it is noted that assessee is having one half share in all these properties but as per ITR he has claimed whole sale consideration, cost of acquisition and deduction in his ITR only. Therefore, the assessee should have claimed deduction of Rs.98,92,675/-(1/2 of19785350) and accordingly, the deduction claimed under section 54/548/54F etc is reduced to Rs.98,92,675/- instead of Rs.1,97,85,350/- and balance deduction claimed at Rs. 98,92,675/- is hereby disallowed. The assessee was requested to furnish the source of investment of Rs.1,97,85,350/- in the purchase of property vide agreement dated 14.10.2021. But the assessee failed to furnish any reply. As the assessee is having half share in this property therefore, source of investment of assessee's share at Rs.98,92,675/- remained unexplained. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 98,92,675/- was added back to the taxable income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act treating the same as unexplained investment which is to be charged at special rates as per section 115BBE of the Act. The addition of Rs.98,92,675/- is confirmed.

3.

The assessee also objects to disallowance of deduction claimed of home loan interest of Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessee was requested to furnish the supporting documents in connection with the deduction of 4 home loan interest of Rs.2,00,000/-. But the assessee failed to file any reply. Therefore, the deduction claimed of home Joan interest of Rs.2,00,000/-was disallowed and is added back to the taxable income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The addition of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed as home loan interest is confirmed.

4.

The assessee was further requested to furnish the supporting documentary evidence in connection with the deduction/exemption claimed under section 10 amounting to Rs.6,78,201/-, under 80C amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and under section 80D amounting to Rs.75,000/-. The assessee failed to furnish any reply in this regard. Therefore, the deduction claimed under section 10 amounting to Rs.6,78,201/-, under 80C amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and under section 80D amounting to Rs.75,000/-totalling Rs.9,03,201/- is hereby disallowed and is added back to the taxable income of the assessee for the year under consideration.”

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made by the learned AO on account of investment in purchase of an immovable property by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 98,92,675 under section 69 as unexplained investment.

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made by the learned AO on account of deduction claimed by the appellant for interest paid on home loan to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made by the learned AO on account of exemption claimed by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 6,78,201 on account of gratuity, leave encashment, LTA and special allowance under section 10 of the Act.

4.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made by the learned AO on account of deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80C and 80D to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000.and 75,000, respectively.”

7.

We have perused the case records and heard the Ld.DR. We find that the Ld.AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, ex-parte qua the assessee, thereby making the following additions/disallowances - i.Rs.98,92,675/- u/s. 69 as unexplained investment in respect of immovable property sold by the assessee; ii. Rs. 2,00,000/- towards home loan interest; iii. Rs.6,78,201/- u/s. 10 on account of gratuity, leave encashment, LTA etc. and iv. Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act respectively as the assessee failed

5 to furnish the details of source of investment in immovable property and no supporting documents were filed relating to the deduction of home loan interest and deduction/exemption claimed u/s. 10/80C/80D of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the above additions made by the Ld.AO mainly for the reason that the assessee failed to file any explanation/documentary evidence in support of his claim even during the appellate proceedings before him. Perusal of the order sheet entries reveals that before the Tribunal, the assessee‟s case was fixed for hearing on three occasions. However, no one appeared for and/or on behalf of the assessee to represent his case. Hence, nothing is available before us so as to enable us to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in his impugned order. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC which is hereby upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23-06-2026 (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Tadepalli Naga पुणे/Pune; Naga Murali Mohan दिन ांक/Dated : 23-06-2026 Murali Mohan Date: 2026.06.29 10:04:23 +05'30' TNMM

6 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →