MAYANK BHARADIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal
Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)’] dated
19.07.2023 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year
2016-17. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A), confirming the addition of Rs.22,33,333/- out of the total addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.44,33,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, on account of failure of the Mayank Bharadiya. vs. ITO
Asst.Year –2016-17
- 2–
assessee to prove the source of the amount paid for purchase of immovable property.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the total sale consideration of the property was Rs.1,30,00,000/- which was purchased by his 3 family members with 1/3 shares each. He has further submitted that the source of aforesaid amount Rs.1,30,00,000/- was that Rs. 21,00,000/- was paid by the assessee from his own bank account and Rs.35,00,000/- was arranged through loan from bank and the balance amount was paid by the two co- owners, who are brother and father respectively of the assessee, out of their bank accounts. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not produce the evidence of the aforesaid source of the amount before the Assessing Officer, resulting into impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer as the entire amount was paid by the assessee, his brother and father out of their bank account as well as from the loan raised from the bank, which can be duly verified, and that there cannot be an element of afterthought in this case.
I am of the view that the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to produce the Mayank Bharadiya. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3–
aforesaid evidence of source of investment in immovable property. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing
Officer with the direction to verify the aforesaid contention of the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the relevant evidences before the Assessing Officer as and when called for to prove the source of consideration for the purchase of property in question.
With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17.03.2025 /-/-
Ahmedabad; Dated 17.03.2025
Manish, Sr. PSआदेश क त ल प अे षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंधत आयकर आयुत / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुत(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त नध, आयकर अपील!य अधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.