AILA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act and Sections 69/69B are contrasting, with the former being a deeming fiction and the latter evidence-based. The AO cannot estimate unaccounted investment under Section 69B without evidence of actual expenditure beyond recorded amounts.
What were the facts?
The assessee company purchased an immovable property, showing an addition to fixed assets at Rs. 26,09,600/- while the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 1,06,89,500/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 86,14,400/- under Section 69 of the Act, which was later reclassified to Section 69B by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 69/69B for unexplained investment in property is sustainable when the AO relies on stamp duty valuation without proving actual expenditure beyond recorded amounts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal v. National E Assessment Centre3 citing153 Taxmann.com 112 · 2023
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL”
This Appeal is against the Order passed by Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). NFAC, and relates to the Assessment year 2013-2014. 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made under section 69 or under section 69B amounting to Rs. 86, 14,400/-
2) Both the lower authori
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026