Archive · 25 Jul 2026
ITAT Deletes ₹80 Lakh Tax Addition on NRI Funds
A woman in Mumbai bought a house worth ₹1.40 crore.
She used her own money and money sent by her husband from Dubai.
The tax department said the ₹80 lakh from her husband was unexplained because she couldn't show all the paperwork.
The woman showed many other documents to prove the money was real.
The court agreed with her and said the tax department couldn't just say the money was unexplained because one piece of paper was missing.
A Mumbai woman bought a property worth ₹1.40 crore using her own funds and money remitted by her NRI husband.
The tax department treated the ₹80 lakh remittance as unexplained due to missing exchange bureau records.
The taxpayer provided extensive evidence, including bank statements, income-tax records, and a gift deed.
The ITAT ruled in favor of the taxpayer, stating that the absence of a single remittance document should not override substantial evidence.
The ITAT deleted the ₹80.10 lakh tax addition made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act.
- Who
- Sanobar Ajaz Ahmed Saudagar and her husband
- What
- Dispute over the source of funds for a property purchase
- When
- Assessment Year 2016-17
- Where
- Mumbai, India
- Why
- The tax department treated the ₹80 lakh remittance as unexplained due to missing documentation.
Tax Department's Stance
Taxpayer's Defense
Unexplained Investment
Tax Department's Stance
The tax department treated the ₹80 lakh remittance as unexplained because the taxpayer could not produce the exchange bureau's remittance records.
Taxpayer's Defense
The taxpayer provided extensive evidence, including the husband's income-tax records, a gift deed, and bank confirmation, to prove the source and utilization of funds.
Documentation Requirements
Tax Department's Stance
The assessing officer insisted on the production of specific documents like remittance advice and exchange bureau records to validate the transaction.
Taxpayer's Defense
The taxpayer argued that the absence of a single remittance document should not override substantial documentary evidence, especially after a decade.
- Taxpayer
- Sanobar Ajaz Ahmed Saudagar
- Assessment Year
- 2016-17
- Property Value
- ₹1.40 crore
- Amount in Dispute
- ₹80.10 lakh
- Additional Amount Added
- ₹10,000
- Tribunal
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
- Husband's Location
- Dubai
- Section of Income-tax Act
- Section 69