Case Law Details
Siddikha M. Pathan Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
In a notable judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune, in the case of Siddikha M. Pathan Vs Income Tax Officer, dealt with an appeal concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal, which was delayed by 316 days, was admitted after the ITAT was satisfied with the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee. The core issue revolved around the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 28,25,000/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deemed as unexplained investment.
Case Background: The case surfaced during the assessment proceedings of Mr. Girish Rajkumar Rachatte, Latur, where it was discovered that he, along with three others including the appellant, had purchased an immovable property in Latur. The appellant’s share in the property, inclusive of all expenses, was valued at Rs. 28,25,000/-. The appellant, who had not filed a return of income under section 139, was issued a notice under section 148 by the AO, who subsequently made an addition for unexplained investment due to the appellant’s failure to substantiate the source of investment.
Appellate Proceedings: The appellant contended that the investment was sourced from family members and an advance received, as detailed in her submissions. However, the AO, after an ex parte order under section 144, and the CIT(A) upon reviewing partial evidence and a remand report, upheld the addition. This led the appellant to appeal to the ITAT.
ITAT’s Analysis and Decision: Upon review, the ITAT found that the appellant had submitted partial evidence regarding the source of investment and pointed out inconsistencies identified by the AO. Notably, the appellant presented additional evidence in the form of bank statements during the appeal, which were not part of the records examined by the AO or the CIT(A).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
