ASHOK KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INT. TAX, AHMEDABAD

ITA 343/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 October 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 69 by explaining the source and nature of the investment with documentary evidence, including remittances from an overseas bank account. The AO and DRP had ignored these evidences.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1,73,25,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 88,31,767/- on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to file a return of income in response to a notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

Whether the investment in the residential flat was unexplained, and whether the notice issued under Section 148 was valid and issued following the prescribed procedure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 30-01- 2024 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Int. Tax, Ahmedabad for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

I.T.A No. 343/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 2 “1. On merits:

1.

The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the AO erred in making the addition of Rs.88,31,765/- under section 69 of the Act by treating the investment made in a residential flat as unexplained investment without appreciating that the Appellant has duly discharged the onus under section 69 of the Act by explaining the source and nature of such investment by providing documentary evidence. Hence, the

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →