SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), NEW DELHI

ITA 5075/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source of funds for the investment in the immovable property. The assessee had provided bank statements, confirmations, and ITRs to substantiate the sources. The Tribunal noted that Unialmaz Jaipur is a partnership firm where the assessee is a partner, Dhaval Jain is the assessee's son, Subhash Chand & Sons HUF is the assessee's HUF, and Amit Jain is an unrelated third party. The Tribunal found that the documents furnished by the assessee in support of his contentions were not considered by the lower authorities, leading to the addition of Rs. 42,50,000/-. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 42,50,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Subhash Chand Jain, is appealing an order dated 20.01.2026 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on the purchase of immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- during Financial Year 2011-12, in which the assessee had a one-fourth share amounting to Rs. 42,50,000/-. The assessee claims to have provided documents to explain the source of funds, but the AO allegedly did not consider them, stating no information was received. The assessee provided acknowledgments of document submission dated 19.11.2019, 08.12.2019, and 09.12.2019. The AO made an addition of Rs. 42,50,000/-. The assessee also presented evidence of funds received from Unialmaz Jaipur (partnership firm), Dhaval Jain (son), Subhash Chand & Sons HUF, and Amit Jain (unrelated party).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 42,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the purchase of immovable property is justified, considering the documents and explanations provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to unexplained income and proof of source of funds). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the documents furnished to explain the source of funds for the property purchase. - The assessee provided acknowledgments of document submission during the assessment proceedings. - Specific sources of funds were detailed: Rs. 2,00,000/- from Unialmaz Jaipur (partnership firm), Rs. 5,00,000/- from Dhaval Jain (son, loan received back), Rs. 29,00,000/- from Subhash Chand & Sons HUF, and Rs. 10,11,000/- from Amit Jain (unrelated party, refund of loan with interest). - The assessee prayed for the deletion of the addition. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue defended the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and the AO. - The Revenue prayed for the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Nirmal Nangia, Sr.DR

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Suresh Anand, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment for AY 2012-13 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground as the assessee along with other co-owners had purchased immovable property

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →