HAMID KHAN,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2), BULANDSHAHR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had proceeded on a fundamental factual error, wrongly assuming the assessee purchased the property instead of selling it. Based on the documentary evidence, including the sale deed, the Tribunal concluded that the basis for reopening the assessment under Section 148 and framing it under Section 143(3) for an unexplained investment was baseless. Consequently, the addition of ₹40 lakhs was deleted, and the assessment framed was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri Hamid Khan, appealed against an addition of ₹40 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The lower authorities treated ₹40 lakhs as unexplained investment, believing the assessee had purchased an immovable property. However, the assessee contended that he had actually sold the property for ₹40 lakhs, not purchased it, and presented a sale deed to substantiate this claim.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of ₹40 lakhs as unexplained investment for the purchase of immovable property was justified, when the assessee presented evidence that he had actually sold the property for the said consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH
2 ITA-1507/Del/2018 3 ITA-1507/Del/2018 4 ITA-1507/Del/2018
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026