AYALATTU CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAY VIJAYAKUMAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, TRIVANDRUM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided bank statements as evidence for the source of investment and that the CIT(A) had not properly considered this explanation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the evidence.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50,17,500 as unexplained investment on the purchase of property, citing information from the seller regarding the actual consideration paid. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, holding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of investment.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee discharged the onus of proving the source of investment for the property purchase, and if the CIT(A) properly considered the evidence provided.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2015-2016 Sri.Ayalattu Chandrasekharan The Deputy Commissioner of Pillay Vijayakumar v. Income-tax, International Koustubham, Kalavoor Taxation, Trivandrum. Alappuzha – 688 522. PAN : AFWPV6451K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms.Lekshmi N, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 O R D E R
Per Inturi Rama Rao, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-12 Bengaluru dated 3rd January, 2023 for the assessment year 2015-2016.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed return of income on 24th August, 2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,35,180. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 26th December, 2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.54,52,680. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.50,17,500 as unexplained investment on purchase of property of . Sri.Ayalattu Chandrasekharan Pillay Vijayakumar. 15.99 acres situated at Alappuzha Municipality on the side of the NH 66. Based on the information furnished by the seller of the property that consideration of Rs.1,40,17,500 was received as against the value of Rs.90 lakh shown in the sale deed, the AO made addition of Rs.50,17,500 as unexplained investment, rejecting the contention of the assessee that the provisions of sec.69B have no application to the facts of the case.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us against the order of the CIT(A) upholding that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proving the source of the investment.
Before us it is contended that the source of investment was properly explained before the learned CIT(A) and without adverting the explanation offered by the assessee, the CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal. He also filed copies of the bank statements, viz., (i) Federal Bank NRE Account NO.10152100135620, (ii) Axis Bank Account No.35401010005962, (iii) SBI Account No.57034310160, and (iv) SBI Account No.57034313660. It is further contended that the additions cannot be sustained in the absence of conclusive evidence, and prayed that he issue may be remanded to the AO for examination of evidence filed.
. Sri.Ayalattu Chandrasekharan Pillay Vijayakumar. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not have any serious objection if the matter is remanded to the file of the AO.
Having heard the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the AO for proper verification of evidence in support of the source for the investment made in the property. Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 69B
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Rajguru Foods, BijapurITA 77/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Alka Ajit Shah, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1915/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rama Krishna Jewellers Private Limited…ITA 1289/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Front Line Guards Private Limited, Navi… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(1)…ITA 7909/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Haripa Industries, Kolkata vs ITO, Central Circle 4(1), KolkataITA 2283/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026