HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

ITA 1684/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)16 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly appreciate the material on record and that the addition under Section 69 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source of funds for the investment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian, purchased property in India using funds transferred from his UK bank account to his NRE account in India. The Assessing Officer treated the investment as unexplained under Section 69, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence of the source of funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the investment in property made from NRE account funds, originating from abroad, can be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(11)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 26.05.2025

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed for A.Y. 2014-

15.2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grievously erred both in law and on facts in upholding the legality of reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the IT Act which is without juri iction and also illegal and bad in law. There being no juri iction on the ld. AO on the appellant as also, there being no rea

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 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →