Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2014-15 challenged an addition of Rs.16.73 lakhs treated as unexplained investment in an immovable property. The lower authorities had upheld this addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the assessee's half share in the co-purchased property, amounting to Rs. 8.36 lakhs. Further, considering potential accumulated savings, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was deemed appropriate, not to be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the entire investment was unexplained and the correct quantification of the addition based on co-ownership and potential savings.
Sections Cited
147, 144
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.