Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27.01.2025, concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari, had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stating that the delay was due to a bonafide mistake in believing that a rectification application under section 154 of the Act would be sufficient. The assessee had purchased a residential property for ₹60,00,000 during the relevant financial year and had submitted documentary evidence explaining the sources of funds. The assessee had filed the appeal after realizing that the appropriate remedy was to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee explained the source of funds for the investment, which included loans and borrowings from family members and savings from salary income.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The addition confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of investment made by the assessee in immovable property remaining unexplained to the extent of Rs.6,39,000/-.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• SURESH CHAND VS. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Jabbar Khan Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• Bhawani Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(2)

  Kolkata benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Irene Pereira vs. ITO, Ward–1 & TPS

  Bangalore benchAY 2016-17Partly Allowed

• Akshay Deepak Talim v/s Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)

• Padmakshi Chakraborty Vs ITO Ward-25(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata benchAY 2020-2021Allowed