Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad has deleted an addition of Rs. 2,18,19,600 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel. The case, Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel Vs. ITO, centered on the source of investment in two agricultural properties purchased jointly by Ms. Patel and her husband. The Tribunal’s decision, pronounced on June 3, 2025, underscored that the onus of proving the source of investment lies with the actual investor, not merely a joint owner named for convenience.
The appeal was filed by Ms. Patel against an order by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated January 15, 2024. The original assessment order, under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17, had added 50% of the property’s sale price to Ms. Patel’s income, deeming it unexplained investment.
Background of the Case
Ms. Patel had filed her return of income on October 18, 2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,34,050. Her case was selected for scrutiny to verify investment and income disclosure related to properties.
During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that Ms. Patel had jointly purchased two agricultural lands with her husband, Dipakbhai Naranbhai Patel. Ms. Patel contended that her husband had solely financed the purchase, and her name was included as a joint owner for convenience. She provided her husband’s Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year 2016-17, along with details of long-term unquoted investments, to support her claim. However, the AO remained unconvinced and added half of the property’s value, Rs. 2,18,19,600, to Ms. Patel’s income as unexplained investment under Section 69A.
