Amit Narayan Karkera Vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Amit Narayan Karkera, is a non-resident living in the USA since 2006. He invested in a residential flat in Wadala, for which he took a loan from HDFC Ltd. The loan was approved on 06/01/2017 and disbursed in 5 installments aggregating to Rs.1,29,00,000/-. The assessee did not file income for A.Y. 2017-18 and purchased an immovable property for Rs.1,43,49,885/-. A notice u/s 148 was issued, but the assessee, being a non-resident, was unaware of it. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained investment. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed for being time-barred. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, stating he was unaware of the new income tax portal and the order due to his employment in the USA.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned?
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs.1,43,49,885/- as unexplained investment is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Amit Narayan Karkera Vs. Income Tax Officer Mumbai

• Rajnish Kasturchand Ostwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Shri Binny Bansal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 1(1), Bangalore

  AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

• Tanuj Pahilaj Lalwani vs Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1)

  Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Ankur Ramesh Vahi vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench 'E' benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai