2025 (1) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aised two issues (i) taxability of investment of Rs. 33,92,975/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the 'Act') and (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,96,500/- claimed under section 24 of the Act. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, a salaried employee, along with his mother and brother; namely, Smt. Sudha Goyal (Mother) and Shri Anuj Goyal (Brother), has acquired a residential flat in Mumbai, for Rs. 1,24,26,616/- in the relevant year. The shares of these co-owners in the said property are as under: S.N. Owners Share Share in value Actual payment 1 Shri Ankur Goyal 45% Rs.62,13,308/- Rs.97,05,366/- 2 Smt. Sudha Goyal 50% Rs.55,91,977....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant/assessee (after 4 years from the assessment of the appellant/assessee), was also reopened under section 147 of the Act to tax the unexplained investment made by Smt. Sudha Goyal in the above-mentioned property. However, the reopened assessment of Smt. Sudha Goyal was completed accepting the returned income vide order dated 24.12.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad. It was argued that when the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad, the Assessing Officer of Smt. Sudha Goyal, had not taken any adverse view in respect of investments, advances etc. made by Smt. Sudha Goyal; then the same should not be considered as unexplained in the hands of the appellant/assessee. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e individual co-owners had not made investment in the said property in proportionate to their shares. She brought our attention to the fact that Smt. Sudha Goyal who required to make investment of Rs. 62,13,308/- had made investment of Rs. 27,21,250/- whereas the assessee-in-hand required to make investment of Rs. 55,91,977/- had made investment of Rs. 97,05,366/-. Whereas, Shri Anuj Goyal had not made any investment in the said property though required to do so as co-owner. It was further contended that Shri Anuj Goyal had given loan to the assessee for making investment, which was nothing but to assist the appellant/assessee to avoid taxes as no prudent man would make surplus investment of Rs. 41,13,389/- (Rs.97,05,366/- minus Rs. 55,91,9....