ABBAS FAKHRUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8297/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment is paramount for determining the consideration. The Assessee had an allotment letter dated 20.07.2008 and paid installments thereafter, with the sale agreement registered on 16.02.2017. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 36,00,000/-. The stamp duty valuation was Rs. 67,56,275/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 67,56,275/- under Section 69 of the Act for unexplained investment. The Commissioner upheld the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in a property is sustainable when the allotment letter and payment of installments predated the registration of the sale agreement, and considering the implications of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and Section 68?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 69,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 68,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Kaku, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)
Hearing: 16.02.2026Pronounced: 12.03.2026

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/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. 2017-18. 2 ABBAS FAKHRUDDIN

2.

In the instant case, as per the information to the effect “that the Assessee has not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration, however, has purchased an immovable property on 16.02.2017 for a consideratio

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →