IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1898/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2016-17 Rajnish Kasturchand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Ostwal Tax, Ward 3(2)(1), H/702, Magnoliya Enclave, Mumbai Nahar Amrit Shakti, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 072 PAN/GIR No.AAKPO6101E (Appellant) .. (Respondent assessee by Shri Fenil Bhat Revenue by Shri satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 24 January 2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 02 December 2024 under section 144C(5). In this appeal, the assessee has challenged not only the validity of the reopening under section 147 but also the addition of ₹2,00,00,000 made under section 69 on the allegation that the investment in a residential property during the relevant year was unexplained.

2. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian who had been living and working in Dubai since 2001 and returned to India only in 2021. During the relevant previous year for A.Y. 2016- 17, the assessee made a payment of ₹2 crores towards the purchase of a residential property in India and the balance consideration was paid in the succeeding years. Since no return of income had been filed in India and information was received regarding the investment in property, notice under section 148 was issued on 13 March 2023 after due procedure under section 148A. During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that he was employed in Dubai for nearly two decades, earning salary income of AED 24,500 per month, had no source of income accruing or arising in India, and therefore was not required to file any return here. It was further submitted that the investment was made completely out of accumulated foreign salary savings which had been remitted from Dubai into his NRE account in India through authorised banking channels.

3. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee produced a complete trail of funds including the RAK Bank statements evidencing withdrawals of AED 7,00,000 on 02.09.2015 and AED 5,00,000 on 03.09.2015, authorised dealer certificates issued by the remittance service providers showing remittance of AED 11,65,000 to India, and the corresponding inward credits aggregating to ₹2,00,52,630 in the Axis Bank NRE account from which the investment in the property was made.

The assessee also produced copies of his employment contract with Smart Planners, salary details, UAE residence visa, and the employee listing downloaded from the official Ministry of Labour website of the UAE indicating that he was employed as General Manager since 01.05.2006. These evidences were part of the material before the Assessing Officer.

4. Before the DRP the assessee furnished additional evidences and clarified each component of the fund trail including the bank extracts from Dubai, remittance records, salary credits and remittances from his RAK Bank account. The relevant extracts of the bank account, copies of authorised dealer certificates, and the details of salary drawn in Dubai were all incorporated into the DRP’s order. The assessee also explained that the total purchase consideration of the property was ₹3,25,00,000, of which ₹2 crores was paid during the year under appeal and that tax @1% on the payments had been duly discharged.

5. For completeness of the record the table of withdrawals, authorised dealer certificates and INR credits as filed in the paper book is incorporated here.

6. After hearing both sides and carefully examining the material placed on record, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian who had been living and working in Dubai continuously since 2001 and returned to India only in 2021. It is equally undisput