Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing in UAE since 1993, made an investment of Rs. 56,15,441/- in property in India. The lower authorities treated this as an unexplained investment, but the assessee contended that the funds originated from income earned in Dubai and were transferred from his and his son's Dubai bank accounts to his Indian bank account before being invested.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee successfully demonstrated that the investment amount was sourced from income earned in Dubai, which was subsequently transferred to India. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition for unexplained investment made by the lower authorities was not justified and ordered its deletion.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for unexplained investment in property was justified when the assessee provided evidence of funds originating from legitimate foreign income transferred to India.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Year : 2015-16 Vashdev Darianomal Kalwani Ward-2, Income Tax बनाम/ (In form No.36 typed - Ahmedabad/ v/s. Vasudev Darianomal ITO Kalwani) Ward-2 H.No.14/1,Mahatmagandhi International Tax, Colony Ahmedabad Baherampura Road Ahmedbad – 380 022 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: CJVPK 1646 L (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Samir Vora, AR Revenue by : Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/12/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 Int.Tax, Ahmedabad, dated 19/01/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. Vashdev Darianomal Kalwani vs. Ward 2 Income Tax Ahmedabad Asst. Year : 2015-16 2 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the addition made by the lower authorities of Rs.56,15,441/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property.
The lower authorities have made/confirmed the impugned addition holding that the assessee could not explain the source of the aforesaid amount invested by the assessee in purchase of property. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained before us that the assessee is a NRI, resident of UAE since 1993 and has not earned any income in India except the bank interest on amount of deposited in his NRI accounts. The Ld. Counsel has further demonstrated that the entire amount was transferred form the Dubai bank account of the assessee as well as that his son to the account of the assessee in India, which was further invested for the purchase of property. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, has explained that it is not a case of unexplained investment in property, rather, the amount in question was invested out of the income earned by the assessee at Dubai, which was transferred from Dubai bank account to the bank account in India and further invested in the property. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the lower authorities in making/confirming the impugned addition. The same is ordered to be deleted.