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

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Tanuj Pahilaj Lalwani, is a non-filer of income-tax returns. He, along with his father, purchased a flat for Rs.1.50 crore on 08.09.2017. The case was reopened based on information from the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai. The assessee claimed he was merely a co-owner and that his father paid the entire consideration. The father was assessed and an addition of Rs.86,86,430/- was made under section 68 of the Act due to an unexplained loan. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of 50% of the property value, amounting to Rs.75,00,000/-, under section 69 of the Act for failure to furnish investment details. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who upheld the assessment order due to non-compliance. The assessee then filed the present appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of 50% of the property value is justified under section 69 of the Act.
• 2. Whether the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Rishiraj Hitendra Bhandari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(1)

  Mumbai 'D' Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

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

  Mumbai benchAY 2015Dismissed

• ADIL vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Amit Narayan Karkera Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Parveen vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘F’ benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward