JABBAR KHAN,GHAZIABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had co-purchased the immovable property with his brother, Shri Abbas. Applying the principle that in the absence of contrary proof, co-purchasers are presumed to acquire property to the extent of their half share each, the addition was restricted to Rs. 8.36 lakhs (half of Rs. 16.73 lakhs). Regarding the quantification of the addition, the Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of accumulated past savings of the assessee and his family. In these peculiar facts, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was deemed just and proper, with a clear rider that this would not be treated as a precedent. Consequently, the assessee received relief of Rs. 11.73 lakhs (Rs. 16.73 lakhs - Rs. 5 lakhs). The Tribunal directed that necessary computation shall follow as per law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Jabbar Khan, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment year 2014-15. The appeal challenges proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute concerns an alleged investment of Rs. 16.73 lakhs in an immovable property, treated as unexplained by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessment order was dated 28.03.2022, and the CIT(A)/NFAC order was dated 19.11.2025. The amount in dispute initially was Rs. 16.73 lakhs.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the entire sum of Rs. 16.73 lakhs, representing alleged investment in an immovable property, is to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee (question of law and fact turning on Section 69 of the Act)? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that he co-purchased the immovable property with his brother, Shri Abbas, implying a shared ownership and therefore, the entire sum should not be attributed to him alone. The assessee also contended that accumulated past savings of the assessee and his family could not be entirely denied as a source for such investment. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through the lower authorities, treated the entire Rs. 16.73 lakhs as unexplained investment. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were mentioned by the Revenue in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082751913(1), dated 19.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.
144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole and substantive issue between the parties herein, It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s alleged investment representing cash a sum of Rs.16.73 lakhs as unexplained in assessment order dated 28.03.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Faced with this situation, I hereby notice that the assessee had in fact co-purchased an immovable property in question for the impugned sum along with his brother namely Shri Abbas; and, therefore, unless to contrary is proved the necessary presumption is that they had acquired the same to the extent of half share each. The impugned addition is therefore restricted to Rs.8.36 lakhs in principle.
Next comes the second substantive issue of quantification of the impugned addition. The Revenue could hardly dispute that in such an instance, possibility of the assessee and his family’s accumulated pasting saving could not be altogether denied. It is thus deemed appropriate in this peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee
2 | P a g e gets relief of Rs.11.73 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
The assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January, 2026.
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Salman vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 26 Oct 2026
