Ashwini Manoj Nimbalkar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Husband Paid, Wife Taxed: Bank Records Defeat Section 69 Addition
Summary: An investment in property cannot continue to be treated as unexplained when the source of payment is satisfactorily established through verifiable bank records. In Ashwini Manoj Nimbalkar, the Pune Tribunal deleted an addition of ₹17,00,436 under section 69, after finding that the disputed portion of the property investment had been paid from the assessee’s husband’s declared bank accounts.
The Assessing Officer had already accepted the substantial portion financed through a housing loan taken in the husband’s name. The remaining payment, too, was traced to his bank accounts. On these uncontroverted facts, the Tribunal held that the investment stood satisfactorily explained.
Property Purchase and the Disputed Balance
The assessee, an individual, purchased immovable property for ₹87,00,436. Reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 were initiated to examine this transaction.
During reassessment, the assessee furnished explanations regarding the source of investment. The Assessing Officer accepted ₹70 lakh as having been financed through an HDFC housing loan taken in the name of her husband, Mr. Manoj Shard Nimbalkar.
However, the explanation for the remaining ₹17,00,436 was not accepted. This amount was added as unexplained investment, increasing the assessed income from the returned income of ₹52,500 to ₹17,52,936.
The reassessment order was passed on 21 February 2024 under section 147 read with section 144B. The assessee’s appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre was unsuccessful, resulting in the appellate order dated 23 March 2026.
Legal Grounds Withdrawn; Merits Pursued
Before the Tribunal, the assessee’s counsel did not press the legal issues raised against the proceedings. Those grounds were therefore dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal consequently examined the substantive issue: whether the balance investment of ₹17,00,436 remained unexplained despite the evidence showing payment by the husband.
This distinction matters. The relief granted was based on the explanation of the investment on merits, and not on any defect in the reassessment proceedings.
The Assessee’s Explanation
The assessee submitted that the portion not covered by the housing loan had also been paid by her husband through his bank accounts.
Counsel referred to the husband’s statements with HDFC Bank and Indian Overseas Bank, placed in the paper book. The payments, it was argued, could be verified directly from those statements.
The contention was straightforward: once the source of the disputed investment was established as the husband’s bank accounts, there was no basis to treat that amount as unexplained investment in the assessee’s hands.
The Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).
Bank Statements Established the Payments
The Tribunal examined the bank records and identified payments of ₹3,50,000 and ₹1,45,000 on 18 December 2014, and ₹12,26,886 and ₹1,000 on 17 January 2015.
The recorded payments totalled ₹17,22,886, which exceeded the disputed investment of ₹17,00,436. The Tribunal found that these amounts had been paid by the husband from his declared bank accounts.
The evidence was supported by the husband’s tax and employment particulars. He was employed with Poddar Medical College, Worli, regularly filed income-tax returns, and had declared gross income of ₹14,11,153 for assessment year 2015-16 in the return filed on 6 August 2015.
The Tribunal recorded that these facts remained uncontroverted.
Addition Deleted Outright
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal held that the source of the disputed investment was the money received from the husband’s bank accounts and that the payments were verifiable from the records furnished.
Accordingly, the investment had been explained satisfactorily, and the addition under section 69 was uncalled for.
The Tribunal reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and deleted the entire addition of ₹17,00,436. The grounds on merits were allowed.
The appeal was partly allowed because the legal grounds had been dismissed as not pressed. The substantive relief was a deletion of the addition, rather than a remand for further verification.
Author’s Comments
The decision illustrates the importance of establishing a clear connection between the property transaction and the supporting financial records. A statement that “the husband paid” becomes persuasive when supported by bank statements, identifiable payments, tax returns and employment particulars.
It also highlights the need to examine the complete financing arrangement. Here, the housing loan in the husband’s name had already been accepted. The remaining payments were independently traced to his declared accounts, completing the explanation of the disputed investment.
The ruling should nevertheless be read on its facts. It does not establish that every payment by a spouse automatically explains an investment. The Tribunal granted relief because the documentary evidence was examined and the relevant facts remained uncontroverted.
A property investment may invite enquiry, but a satisfactorily established source cannot be disregarded merely because the payment came from the spouse’s account.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT PUNE ORDER
1. The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 23.03.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee requesting for not pressing the legal issues raised by the assessee and the same are therefore dismissed as ‘not pressed’.
3. As regards the merits, the grounds of appeal revolve around the addition for unexplained investment in the immovable property at Rs.17,00,436/-.
4. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged sum pertains to purchase of immovable property of which the amount paid through housing loan has already been accepted and the remaining sum has been paid by the assessee’s husband through bank account and the same are verifiable from the entries appearing in the bank account placed on record. It is therefore submitted that since the source of the investment has been explained paid by the assessee’s husband no addition is called for in the hands of assessee.
5. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and re-assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 have been initiated to examine the transaction of purchase of immovable property at Rs.87,00,436/-. During the course of re-assessment proceedings submissions were filed by the assessee based on which ld. Assessing Officer accepted the source of investment to the extent of Rs.70.00 lakh paid from the HDFC Housing loan taken in the name of assesee’s husband Mr. Manoj Shard Nimbalkar. However, for the remaining amount ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee’s contention and made addition at Rs.17,00,436/- and against the returned income of Rs.52,500/- the income assessed at Rs.17,52,936/-. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed.
7. Before this Tribunal, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the bank statement of the assessee’s husband held with HDFC bank and Indian Overseas Bank. On perusal of these bank statements, I find that on 18.12.2014 Rs.3.50 lakh from HDFC Bank and Rs.1,45,000/- on 18.12.2014. Similarly, Rs.12,26,886/- and Rs.1,000/- on 17.01.2015 paid from Indian Overseas Bank. In total, the alleged sum of Rs.17,22,886/- has been paid by the assessee’s husband from his declared bank account. It is also established that the assessee’s husband is regularly filing the Income Tax Return and is employed with Poddar Medical College, Worli and the gross income for A.Y. 2015-16 is declared at Rs.14,11,153/- in the return submitted on 06.08.2015.
8. Under these given facts and circumstances which remained uncontroverted, I find that the source of alleged investment of Rs.17,00,436/- is the amount received from the bank account of the assessee’s husband and the same are verifiable from the bank account filed in the paper book and therefore alleged investment has been explained satisfactorily and therefore the impugned addition u/s.69 is uncalled for. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and addition for unexplained investment at Rs.17,00,436/- is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are allowed.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 06th October, 2026
