ITA 888/HYD/2026 Lakhani Mehrunnissa vs. ITO, Ward-1

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mrs. Mehrunnissa Lakhani, did not file any return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 due to the disturbances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of her husband's business. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to assess the income on account of the purchase of an immovable property. The Assessing Officer assessed the entire purchase consideration of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- as income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The assessee challenged this assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, arguing that she is a co-purchaser of the property with her son, who has already declared the transaction in his return of income, and that the Assessing Officer's action amounts to double taxation.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 118,00,000.00 made by the Assessing Officer is justified.
• 2. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the sources of funds for the property purchase.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shibani Addhya

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-2021Allowed

• Dipa Prakashkumar Velani vs. Assessment Unit through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

  Ahmedabad bench

• Divya Panwar vs DCIT

  Delhi "B" Bench: New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• ITA No.6816/Mum/2025; Avani Azad Parikh, Mumbai

  Mumbai benchAY 2015Dismissed

• ITA No. 6577/Del/2025 (A.Y 2017) ACIT Vs. Pushpa Aggarwal

  Delhi bench

• Mrs. Marguerite Lasusa Chawla Vs ACIT, International Taxation

  Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed