PRADIP NAIK,GOA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 43, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1497/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2025AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee, an NRI, had provided bank statements and transaction details to the CIT(A) to explain the source of investments from funds remitted from Oman. However, the AO's remand report indicated the source from Oman remained unexplained.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment of the assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), for AY 2012-13 based on information about significant bank deposits. The AO made an addition of INR 3,25,00,000/- for unexplained investments in mutual funds as the assessee did not file a return and failed to provide satisfactory explanations.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained investments in mutual funds was justified when the assessee claimed the source was from NRI accounts with funds remitted from abroad, and if the lower authorities properly considered the evidence provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 69B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (through VC), Ms. Sakshi Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.DR
Hearing: 09.10.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

Year : 2012-13] Pradip Naik vs ITO Bungalow No.25, International Goa Housing Board, Taxation-2(2)(2) Behind Sai Service Station, New Delhi Bardex, North Goa-403521 PAN-AFVPN7030H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (through VC) & Ms. Sakshi Goyal, CA Respondent by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

1.

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.06.2022 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-43, [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. 10054/2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 u/s 144(1)/147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The AO had information in his possession that assessee had made deposits of INR 3,75,00,000/- in the bank account but had not filed the return of income therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. Thereafter, since the assessee had not participated in the proceedings nor made any compliance, AO has held that investments made in mutual funds totaling to INR 3,25,00,000/-, source of which remained unexplained and accordingly, made the addition of such amount made u/s 69B of the Act.

3.

Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted the necessary details of the source of investments and submits that assessee is a NRI and all the deposits in the bank account are out of the income earned outside India and investments in mutual funds were made out of the funds transferred from NRI accounts. The assessee also filed the computation of income alongwith transactions statements and the bank statements in support of the claim before Ld. CIT(A) who sought Remand Report. The AO in the remand report stated that assessee has not been able to provide the source of the investments from Oman and thereafter appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- as unexplained investments under section 69B of the Act.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the stand taken by the AO that the correct source of fund in NRE Bank account has not been explained by the assessee, although all the relevant documents, explaining the source of funds, were produced before the Ld. CIT(A).

3. The AO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act by merely relying on the information received from the AIR data.” Page | 2

5. All the grounds are with respect to the addition of INR 3,25,00,000/- made towards the investment in mutual funds thus, they are taken together for consideration.

6. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee is NRI and doing business in Oman since 1985 and having no income accrued or arise in India except interest income or income from mutual funds. The immediate source of investment made in mutual fund were claimed to have been made out of the funds available in the NRI account where the amounts were remitted from Oman. The assessee has filed all the relevant details such as bank statements etc. before Ld. CIT(A) however, the AO in Remand Report has alleged that the assessee has not explained the source of such funds from Oman.

7. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and remand the issue to the file of AO to pass the order denovo fresh after considering the submissions and details filed by the assessee regarding the source of investment made in mutual funds. The assessee is also directed to appear and file all the relevant evidences to explain the source of investment made in mutual funds. With these directions, all the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →