BATOOL RASHID AHMED BAKHLA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- related to a leave and license agreement. The issue regarding another addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 69A was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 56(2)(7)(B)(ii) and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(7)(B)(ii) but affirmed the addition under Section 69A.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 69A as unexplained money is justified and whether the amount in the leave and license agreement is to be doubted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(7)(B)(ii),Section 69A,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / ORDER
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.12.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19.
ITA 1577/MUM/2026 BATOOL RASHID AHMED BAKHLA
In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 17.04.2021, has made the addition of Rs.1,31,733/- under Section 56(2) (7)(B)(ii) of the Act, being 1/3 of Rs.3,95,200/- as difference between the stamp duty value of property and transacted value at Rs. 1,48,95,200/- and Rs.1,45,00,000/- respectively and the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, who vide impugned order though deleted the addition of Rs.1,31,733/-, however, affirmed the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- being deposit made by the tenant in the month of March, 2018 in respect of property taken on rent, more or less, doubting the advance taken by the Assessee.
We observe from the impugned order that leave and license was granted in favor of the tenant vide leave and license agreement dated 06.04.2018, as also reproduced by the ld. Commissioner, wherefrom it clearly appears that the said agreement was executed on 06.04.2018 and registered on 16.04.2018 and therefore, we could not find out any plausible reason doubting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as depicted in the leave and license agreement and thus, the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this aspect, is deleted.
However, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue with regard to the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the AO as affirmed by the ld. Commissioner under Section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money, to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, as the Assessee has specifically undertakes to provide the detailed information in respect of such amount, if the opportunity is granted. Thus, the issue with regard to the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act, is remanded to the Jurisdictional AO for decision afresh, suffice it to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
ITA 1577/MUM/2026 BATOOL RASHID AHMED BAKHLA
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary
Copy to: BATOOL RASHID AHMED BAKHLA , ROOM NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, CRYSTAL 1 TOWER ARAB LANE GRANT ROAD,, MUMBAI-400008, MAHARASHTRA
INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 23(1)(1), 2 PIRAMAL CHAMBER LALBAUG PAREL, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026