Arvind Murji Bhanushali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, an individual, filed his original return of income for the year under consideration on 30.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,91,200/-. The case was reopened and, pursuant to the proceedings under section 148A of the Act, notice under section 148 was issued on 27.07.2022. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income on 03.05.2023 declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.5,24,00,000/- and called upon him to explain the source thereof. The assessee explained the source as sale proceeds of agricultural land of Rs.81,99,000/-, unsecured loans of Rs.4,04,00,000/- and own sources of Rs.38,28,000/-. The Assessing Officer accepted the source to the extent of the sale proceeds of agricultural land and loans aggregating to Rs.1,48,00,000/- received from 30 parties. However, the balance loans of Rs.2,56,00,000/- and the amount stated to be from own sources were not accepted. Consequently, an addition of Rs.2,94,28,000/- was made under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs.2,99,19,200/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reopening and the addition on merits.…

Legal Issues

• 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding ac*on of the Assessing Officer in issuing no*ces under 148 dated 27.07.2022 read with sec*on 147 as the same is wholly without jurisdic*on and is bad in law.
• 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding ac*on of the Assessing Officer of making addi*on on account of unexplained investment at Rs.2,94,28,000/- under sec*on 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with invoking sec*on 115BB without apprecia*ng that, the Assessing Officer failed to give informa*on of the loan par*es for whom he was not sa*sfied.
• 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in not giving credit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,51,00,000 - Rs.1,48,00,000) that the Assessing Officer was sa*sfied about during the remand proceedings.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Umar Faruk Suleman Asmal vs. Income Tax Officer

  Surat bench

• Santosh Maruti Pawar vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune

  Pune bench

• Harpreet Singh vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Mohali

  Chandigarh bench

• Late Pratapsingh Kartarsingh Walia vs. Income Tax Officer

  Pune bench

• ADIL vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Niravbhai Kirit Shah vs. The ITO

  Surat bench