MAYANK BHARADIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence for the source of investment. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The addition was related to the purchase of immovable property where the assessee allegedly failed to prove the source of funds.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to prove the source of investment for the property purchase, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG
Date of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 O R D E R
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.
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 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 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
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026