Mithlesh Amarnath Maurya Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Addition u/s 69 Deleted – No Evidence of On-Money Source Accepted in Spouse’s Case; Inconsistent Approach of AO/CIT(A) Rejected – ITAT Mumbai
The assessee faced addition of ₹57.24 lakh as unexplained investment in flat purchase and alleged on-money payment based on information from search on a builder group. CIT(A) granted partial relief by accepting housing loan of ₹42.50 lakh but sustained ₹14.74 lakh u/s 69. Before ITAT, it was shown that the property was jointly purchased, funded through housing loan and spouse’s banked savings, and identical transaction was accepted in the spouse’s assessment without addition.
ITAT held that sustaining addition in assessee’s hands when the same source and transaction were accepted in spouse’s case leads to inconsistency and possible double taxation. In absence of any adverse material disproving documentary evidence, addition of ₹14.74 lakh was unjustified. Further, allegation of ₹3.37 lakh on-money payment failed since no seized document or corroborative evidence linked the assessee with cash payment; mere general information about builder group was insufficient.
Result: Entire additions deleted; assessee’s appeal allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 16.10.2025, for Assessment Year 2013-14, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 06.03.2022.
