[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-399996-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-399996-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","taiyab-chaudhary-income-tax-appellate-tribunal-delhi-g-bench-ita-no-144del2017","Taiyab Chaudhary - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi G Bench ITA No. 144/DEL/2017","","Decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ‘G’ Bench in ITA No. 144/DEL/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee challenged validity of proceedings under section 147, and additions for unexplained investment in a property at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. The Tribunal notes payments for the flat were made in Euros directly to the builder by co-owner Ms. Diana Perrone, with 50% gifted to the assessee. Since the source of investment was explained under section 69, the unexplained investment addition of Rs. 38,03,850/- was deleted, and the matter addressed regarding business expense disallowance.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/taiyab-chaudhary-income-tax-appellate-tribunal-delhi-g-bench-ita-no-144del2017/399996/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/taiyab-chaudhary-income-tax-appellate-tribunal-delhi-g-bench-ita-no-144del2017/399996.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"supergirl","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-27",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the assessee’s main objection regarding unexplained investment?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The assessee argued that the unexplained investment addition was unjustified because the property purchase involved a 50% share, with payments made in Euros directly to the builder by Ms. Diana Perrone, who gifted the assessee’s share.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the Tribunal assess the source of investment for the property?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Tribunal held that payments were made in Euros and the investment source was the Euros received from Ms. Diana Perrone, which satisfied the requirement to explain the source under section 69.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What was the outcome of the addition of Rs. 38,03,850/-?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 38,03,850/- for unexplained investment, allowing that ground.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},399996,1791151515,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962088121634,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,  \nNEW DELHI  \nBEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND  \nMS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER  \nITA No. 144/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2009-10]  \nTaiyab Chaudhary Vs. The Income tax Officer  \nS/o Yakub Chaudhary Ward – 2(4)  \nVillage Indrishpur, P.O.Baraut Ghaziabad  \nDist Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh PAN: AACCS 4209 C  \n(Applicant) (Respondent)  \nAssessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv  \nShri Shailesh Gupta, CA  \nShri Madhur Agarwal, Adv  \nDepartment By : Ms. Yamini Gautam, Sr. DR  \nDate of Hearing  \nDate of Pronouncement  \n::  \n11.05.2023  \n17.05.2023  \nORDER  \nPER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-  \nThis appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of theld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 18.10.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10.  \n2  \n2. The substantive grievances of the assessee read as under:  \n1. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming that the initiation of the assessment proceedings uls 147 of the Act was valid, without appreciating that reason recorded for initiation of assessment proceedings uls 147 was unjustified and inconsistent with the facts of the appellant 's case.  \n2. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in upholding the contention of the Ld AO and enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment without bringing in any cogent material on record to prove that the appellant has made any investment from undisclosed sources.  \n3. That the Ld ~ CIT (A) erred in facts and law in enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment from Rs 38 ,03 ,8501-to Rs 76 ,07, 7001- by considering the appellant as sole owner of property, without appreciating the fact that as per sale deed appellant is 50% owner of the property.  \n4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in upholding the contention of the Ld. AO and enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the appellant has received 50% share in property by way of gift.  \n5. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in upholding the contention of the Ld AO and enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly substantiated the actual source of purchase of property i.e. whole payment was made from bank account of co-owner of property in Euros directly to the builder.  \n3  \n6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant 's case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in enhancing the  \ndisallowance of 20% business expenses amounting to Rs 3 ,28 ,8371-made by Ld AO to Rs. 18 ,42 ,4801- being 100% receipts as unexplained income:  \na) merely on basis of doubt, suspicion, conjecture and surmises that the appellant has not conducted any business activity  \nb) by arbitrarily rejecting the submissions of the appellant.  \nThat the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”  \n3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. We have considered the documentary evidences brought on record and have also perused the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides.  \n4. The first substantive grievance of the assessee relates to the addition on account of unexplained investment in property amounting to Rs. 38,03,850/ - .  \n5. The underlying facts are that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has purchased a property at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, jointly with Ms. Diana Perrone, a resident of Italy for Rs. 76,07,700/ - . The assessee’s share in the investment being half, comes to Rs. 38,03,850/ .  \n4  \n6. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of investment.  \n7. The assessee explained that the property was purchased by Ms. Diana Perrone, who gifted 50% of the share in the property to the assessee. It was explained that all the payments for the flat were made by Ms. Diana Perrone and the p","cbCaifdAd3S6Uhks","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifdAd3S6Uhks","pdf",120806,13,"English","# Order\n## Grounds of appeal\n## Unexplained investment in property\n## Source of investment under section 69\n## Business expense disallowance","[{\"question\":\"What was the assessee’s main objection regarding unexplained investment?\",\"answer\":\"The assessee argued that the unexplained investment addition was unjustified because the property purchase involved a 50% share, with payments made in Euros directly to the builder by Ms. Diana Perrone, who gifted the assessee’s share.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Tribunal assess the source of investment for the property?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal held that payments were made in Euros and the investment source was the Euros received from Ms. Diana Perrone, which satisfied the requirement to explain the source under section 69.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the outcome of the addition of Rs. 38,03,850/-?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 38,03,850/- for unexplained investment, allowing that ground.\"}]","Taiyab Chaudhary - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi G Bench ITA No. 144/DEL/2017 | PDF",1790506316,33]