SHRI PUSHIPINDER OBERAI,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 September 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of adverse medical conditions faced by his daughter and mother. Regarding the addition of Rs. 55 Lacs, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission of an agreement dated 26-10-2009 with Smt. Sushila Kumaran, demonstrating receipt of Rs. 50 Lacs through cheques duly credited to the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal observed that Smt. Sushila Kumaran subsequently sold the Noida property to another buyer via a sale agreement dated 04-01-2010, with the assessee merely acting as a confirming party. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the source of investment to the extent of Rs. 55 Lacs stood substantiated. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 55 Lacs made by the AO under Section 69 was deleted, and the consequential denial of deduction under Section 54 was also set aside. The appeal was allowed. No other grounds were urged.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Pushpinder Oberai, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 against an order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which upheld an assessment framed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. The assessment was reopened due to the assessee purchasing immovable property in Mumbai for Rs. 165 Lacs, with Rs. 138 Lacs sourced from a bank loan and the remainder from the sale of a Noida property and normal income, none of which were reflected in the original return. The AO noted the assessee sold a Noida property for Rs. 55 Lacs, computed capital gains of Rs. 27.44 Lacs after indexation, and claimed a deduction under Section 54, reducing gains to nil. The AO disallowed Rs. 55 Lacs as an unsubstantiated source for the Mumbai property investment under Section 69, consequently denying the Section 54 deduction. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal given a delay of 78 days in filing. - Assessee: Argued for condonation of delay due to adverse medical conditions of his daughter and mother, supported by an affidavit and condonation petition. - Revenue: No argument recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 55 Lacs as an unsubstantiated source of investment in Mumbai property under Section 69, and the consequential denial of deduction under Section 54, is justified. - Assessee: Submitted an agreement dated 26-10-2009 with Smt. Sushila Kumaran, showing receipt of Rs. 50 Lacs via cheques credited to the assessee's bank account. Argued that Smt. Sushila Kumaran sold the Noida property to another buyer, with the assessee acting only as a confirming party, thus substantiating the source of investment. - Revenue: No argument recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

For Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) — Ld. Sr. DR

(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Pushpinder Oberai DCIT H-801 One North Plot No 35 F, NH 22, बनाम/ Near Magarpatta Township Near Toll Tax Barrier, HPMC Road Vs. Opposite YOO Pune Parwanoo (HP) - 173220 Hadspar, Pune-411028 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAFPO-7214-B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Devendra Jain (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15-09-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 20-11-2017. The assessee is aggrieved by assessment of capital gains by Ld. AO.

Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 78 delays in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. The assessee is a retired Colonel in the Indian Army. The delay is stated to have happened owing to adverse medical conditions being faced by assessee’s daughter and mother. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of the appeal on merits.

2.

The assessment of the assessee was reopened vide notice u/s 148 dated 29-03-2017. The same was in the background of the fact that the assessee purchased certain immoveable property at Mumbai for Rs.165 Lacs. The substantial purchase amount of Rs.138 Lacs was stated to be sourced out of bank loan whereas remaining amount was stated to be earned out of sale of property at Noida and normal income earned by the assessee. However, the said transaction was not reflected in the return of income. For this issue, the case was reopened. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee sold certain property at Noida for Rs.55 Lacs and after claiming indexation of purchase cost, computed Capital Gains of Rs.27.44 Lacs. Against this, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 and reduced the gains to nil. The assessee was directed to substantiate the sale transaction. After considering assessee’s submissions from time to time, Ld. AO proceeded to compute the capital gains in the hands of the assessee.

3.

It was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee purchased three flats at Mumbai for Rs.165.75 Lacs vide purchase agreement dated 08-09- 2009. The amount of Rs.137.50 Lacs was funded out of housing loan which was not in dispute. The source to the extent of Rs.55 Lacs was stated to be arising out of a property situated at Noida. In support, the assessee furnished sale agreement dated 04-01-2010 which is extracted in the assessment order. This agreement was a tripartite agreement between the assessee, Smt. Sushila Sukumaran as second party and Shri Anil Kumar Tyagi as third party. The consideration of Rs.55 Lacs was stated to be received by Smt. Sushila Sukumaran (second party) and accordingly, Ld. AO disbelieved the sources of investment to the extent of Rs.55 Lacs. The assessee failed to substantiate its stand properly with documentary evidences and accordingly, the amount of Rs.55 Lacs was added u/s 69. Consequently, the deduction claimed u/s 54 was also denied to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR has placed on record an agreement dated 26-10- 2009 which is between the assessee and Smt. Sushila Kumaran. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.50 Lacs from Smt. Sushila Kumaran vide cheques dated 19-08-2009, 26-08-2009 and 24-10-2009. The Ld. AR demonstrated that these cheques were duly credited in assessees’ bank account. The same are also evidenced by bank certificates as placed on record. Upon due consideration of relevant material, It emerges that Smt. Sushila Kumaran has chosen to sell the property to another buyer vide subsequent sale agreement dated 04-01-2010 and received sale consideration from the seller. The assessee has acted as confirming party only. This being so, the source of investment in the hands of the assessee stood substantiated and there is no reason left to disbelieve the claim of the assessee. In such a case, the computation of capital gains and consequential deduction claimed u/s 54 could not be denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the impugned addition of Rs.55 Lacs and allow the appeal of the assessee. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.

5.

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 17-09-2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →