Dineshbhai Parmar Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Summary: ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of Dineshbhai Parmar for AY 2020-21 and deleted an addition of ₹1.82 lakh relating to the source of investment in a jointly purchased property. The assessee and other co-sharers had purchased a property for ₹58.74 lakh, including stamp duty. The assessee’s case before the Assessing Officer was that the entire contribution towards the property had been made by his father and brother and that he himself had not contributed any amount. The AO accepted contribution of ₹54.86 lakh by the assessee’s father and brother but found that details regarding the balance amount of ₹3.88 lakh had not been furnished. On that basis, the AO calculated the assessee’s share and made an addition of ₹1.82 lakh.
The Tribunal observed that the AO had primarily accepted the assessee’s explanation that the investment was made by his father and brother and had accepted their investment of ₹54.86 lakh. The disputed addition related only to the minor amount of ₹1.82 lakh. Considering the smallness of the amount, the Tribunal held that it could otherwise be well assumed that the assessee might have paid the amount out of his past savings. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition and ordered its deletion. The assessee’s appeal was accordingly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 20/11/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
2. The short issue involved in this appeal is relating to the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 1.82 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) on account of failure of the assessee to explain the source of investment to that extent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse alongwith other co-sharers purchased a property for Rs. 58.74 lakhs including stamp duty, out of which, the assessee had contributed an amount of Rs. 54,86,000/-. The assessee pleaded before the AO that the entire contribution was made by his father and brother and that the assessee had not made any contribution for the purchase of the property. The AO, however, observed that out of the total amount of Rs. 58.74 lakhs, the father and brother of the assessee had contributed of Rs. 54.86 lakhs. He observed that the assessee had failed to give details about the remaining amount of Rs. 3.88 lakhs. The AO calculated the share of the assessee out of the said contribution of the amount and made the addition of Rs. 1.82 lakhs.
3.1 Admittedly, the AO primarily agreed with the submission of the assessee that the entire amount was invested by his father and brother and has also accepted the investment by them of Rs. 54.86 lakhs. He has made the impugned addition only on account that the explanation regarding the minor amount of Rs. 1.82 lakhs has not been given by the assessee, whereas, the case of the assessee is that he has not contributed any amount. Considering the smallness of the amount it can otherwise be well assumed that the assessee might have paid the aforesaid amount out of his past savings. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find justification on the part of the AO in making the impugned addition and the same is ordered to be deleted.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22/09/2026
