Indian engineer wins Rs 69-lakh unexplained investment income tax case in ITAT Mumbai on these technical grounds
Jul 17, 2025
Synopsis
In 2025, an Indian engineer working in Dubai, won a tax case against the Income Tax Department regarding a Rs 69-lakh 'unexplained investment'. The department questioned his Kerala property purchase and fixed deposit investments. While he gave explanations for these assets and investments, the tax dept rejected it. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai ruled in his favor on two technical grounds. Read to know how he won.
Indian engineer working in Dubai since 1997 wins Rs 69 lakh income tax unexplained investment case in ITAT Mumbai on this technical ground related to Section 292BB; Here’s what happenedET OnlineIndian engineer working in Dubai since 1997 wins Rs 69 lakh income tax unexplained investment case in ITAT Mumbai on this technical ground related to Section 292BB; Here’s what happened
On June 27, 2025, an Indian engineer , who had been working in Dubai, United Arab Emirates since 1997 won a case of Rs 69-lakh unexplained investment under Income Tax Act, 1961 on technical grounds. The engineer had bought a property in his hometown in Kerala for Rs 39 lakh and also put Rs 30 lakh in fixed deposits (FDs). However, the income tax department claimed that both the property purchase (Rs 39 lakh) and FD investment (Rs 30 lakh) were ‘unexplained investments’ under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
As a result, the entire Rs 69 lakh (39+30) was added to his income and accordingly he was issued tax notices and penalty proceedings were also initiated against him. To fight against this tax notice and penalty proceedings, this engineer at first filed an appeal in the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) of the tax department. He explained that since the time he was working in Dubai, he had been sending remittance money back to his family in India. He also explained that this Rs 30 lakh in FDs were simply old FDs that had matured and were reinvested.
He also explained that the funds for the property investment came entirely from his salary in Dubai, meaning the income had never accrued or arisen in India. The DRP accepted the explanation for the FD money but rejected the property investment explanation so he filed an appeal in ITAT Mumbai.
ITAT Mumbai heard the arguments presented by both the tax department and the engineer’s lawyers, and ruled in the engineer’s favour because of two technical reasons. Among the two reasons, the first reason was the time when this engineer used his Dubai money to buy this Kerala property, he was a non-resident Indian (NRI). Secondly the benefit of Section 292BB under Income Tax Act, 1961 was not applied to this engineer’s case.
To find out more about the technical reasons beind ITAT Mumbai’s decision not to enforce Section 292BB to this case, which led to the engineer’s win and the cancellation of the entire tax notice, keep reading. This article also outlines the four grounds of appeal that were accepted by ITAT Mumbai, contributing to the taxpayer’s success.
How did this unexplained investment case under Income Tax Act, 1961 start?
According to the order of ITAT Mumbai dated June 27, 2025, here’s the details:
FY 2014-15: An engineer working in Dubai, UAE purchased a property in Kerala for Rs 39 lakh (Rs 39,62,714) and booked an FD worth Rs 30 lakh (Rs 30,36,720).
April 20, 2022: The tax assessing officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 and re-opened his tax file.
May 11, 2022: The engineer filed an income tax return (ITR) in response to notice issued under Section 148 declaring income of Rs 5,85,620.
March 11, 2023 to April 21 of 2024: The tax department issued him statutory tax notices under Section 142 (1)
March 15, 2024: The engineer filed part reply to these tax notices and therefore a show cause notice was issued and served upon him. He failed to avail the opportunity of filing submissions/explanations in response to these show cause notices.
March 31, 2024: The case was getting time barred and since the engineer did not defend his case, a best judgement order under Section 144 imposing Rs 69 lakh income as unexplained investment under Section 69 was added to his income and accordingly penalty proceedings were also initiated against him.
The engineer filed an appeal in DRP against this best judgement order.
What did the taxpayer explain about ‘unexplained investments’?
According to the order of the ITAT Mumbai, here’s what the engineer taxpayer’s lawyers said:
(no part of the explanation has been changed or altered, everything is as per what the judgement said)
The Assessee being non-resident and working in Dubai, UAE from which he had made direct remittance for purchase of property in Kerala and the money transfer receipts and all the relevant documentary details were already provided;
Since the income had never accrued or arisen in India the investment in property cannot be termed as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
Fixed deposits of Rs 30,36,720 were made from maturity of old fixed deposits, because, since 1997 the Assessee has been staying in Dubai and working as an engineer and earning salary.
The savings in fixed deposits held in India are old and being matured and reinvested during the current year and the bank statements highlighting the same were already provided.
DRP accepted his arguments partially and said that he has successfully explained the source of funds for the Rs 30 lakh FD.
DRP said this about the Kerala property investment: “As regards, the investment in property, the applicant assessee has not been able to explain the sources of investment to the extent of Rs 36,12,173 with proper documentary evidence.”
He filed an appeal in Mumbai ITAT against the order of the DRP.
These four grounds of appeal were raised in ITAT Mumbai
The taxpayer’s lawyer raised four grounds of appeal and ground 1 and 2 were accepted by ITAT Mumbai. Since ground 1 and 2 were accepted, ground 3 and 4 were deemed insignificant and academic.
The four grounds of appeal as presented by the taxpayer’s lawyers are as follows:
1.“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai was not having the jurisdiction over the appellant as he was a non-resident during the year and, therefore, he has erred in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and also issuing the notice under Section 148.”
2.“ On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai has erred in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and also issuing the notice under Section 148 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void.”
3.“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) beyond the time limit provided for completion of the assessment under the provisions of Section 153.”
4.“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in adding an amount of 36,12,173 under section 69 of the Act being the purchase price paid by the appellant for acquiring a property at Kerala, without appreciating the fact that the said payment was done in the earlier years and not during the assessment year under consideration.”
What did ITAT Mumbai say?
ITAT Mumbai deleted the entire income addition under Section 69 unexplained investment provisions and decided not to apply Section 292BB benefits in this case.
The tax notice was issued by the tax AO of Mumbai zone while the engineer was an NRI and hence the international taxation department AO should have issued the notice. If Section 292BB benefits were applied in this case, then this technical issue of AO’s jurisdiction would not have been an issue.
Here’s what exactly the ITAT Mumbai said:
1.“We have noticed that in the order under Section 148A clause (d) dated 20.04.2022, the AO has acknowledged the response to the notice by the Assessee that he was NRI for the relevant year. Therefore, it is not the case of the Revenue that the AO who has issued the impugned notice under Section 148 was not aware that the Assessee was NRI for the relevant year.”
2.“Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the arguments of the Ld. D.R. (tax department’s lawyer) wherein he has tried to invoke Section 292BB, because of the above discussion and the judicial precedent relied on by the Ld. A.R., there is no merit found in the arguments from applicability of section 292BB in the case of the Assessee (engineer).”
3.“Further, in view of the findings of the High Court in the case of Nimir Kishore Mehta (supra) the AO who had issued the notice under Section 148 was not having jurisdiction on the case of the Assessee.”
4.“Therefore, the issuance of show cause notice under Section 148A(b), passing of the order under Section 148A(d) and subsequent issuance of notice under Section 148 by the AO in this case are held to be carried out without having jurisdiction over the issue and the said proceedings are bad in law and accordingly liable to be quashed. Accordingly, ground Nos.1 &2 are decided in favour of the Assessee.”
ITAT Mumbai said: “ In view of the decision on ground Nos.1 & 2 in favour of the Assessee wherein the notice issued under Section 148 were held to be issued without any jurisdiction, the decision on ground Nos.3 & 4 pails into insignificance and has been rendered academic and therefore needs no adjudication The appeal of the Assessee is disposed of in favour of the Assessee in above manner. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2025.”
What might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement?
ET Wealth Online asked various experts about the key legal takeaways from this judgement. Here’s what they said:
Chartered Accountant Priyal Goel Jain, NRI Tax Advisor, Dinesh Aarjav & Associates, says: "The assessee secured relief purely on technical grounds, the ITAT rightly held that the notice under Section 148 was void ab initio, having been issued by an officer without jurisdiction over an NRI. This procedural defect alone rendered the assessment proceedings invalid. That said, even on merits, the taxpayer’s position was defensible. The source of funds used to purchase the property i.e. matured fixed deposits—was well-documented; hence, the allegation of unexplained investment was inherently weak."
Chartered Accountant Ashish Karundia says: “A jurisdictional defect, whether related to territorial boundaries or the subject matter of a case, undermines the very foundation of legal authority to proceed. Such a flaw is incurable and cannot be rectified. The established legal principles affirm that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default. Consequently, any notice issued without proper jurisdiction is considered legally void, and this invalidity remains unaffected even by provisions such as Section 292BB. Nonetheless, it remains essential that jurisdictional objections are raised within the prescribed timeframe.”
Vishal Lohia, Associate Partner, Dhruva Advisors LLP, says: “In the current case, the assessee has won on technical grounds i.e. the issuance of the reassessment notices are invalid as the same has been issued by wrong jurisdiction of the tax officer (i.e. notice was issued by domestic tax officer instead of international tax officer).”
“The tax assessing officer (AO), in his reassessment order, had alleged that the taxpayer has not been able to explain the sources of investment in immovable property with proper documentary evidence.
“The ITAT order seems to suggest that the taxpayer had made efforts to submit some documentary evidence, which eventually was not accepted by the tax officer. Since the ITAT decided the matter in favour of the taxpayer on technical grounds, the ITAT has not commented on the merits of the case (i.e. the quality of the documentary evidence).”
“Where the matter would have been discussed on merits (i.e. in a situation where the notice would have been issued by an International Tax officer), the taxpayer would have had an opportunity to support his claim with respect to documentary evidence as well as he could have argued on the ground that the reassessment notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limits.”
“This case gives a lesson that whenever an NRI taxpayer receives a notice from the tax officer, apart from adhering to the notice and providing relevant information, the taxpayer should also make efforts to check the veracity of the notice to determine whether the said notice is correct in all respects, as the same could have an overall impact on the validity of the tax proceedings initiated by the tax officer.”
Prabhakar K S, Founder & CEO, Shree Tax Chambers, says: The non-resident has succeeded in getting a big relief, but only after years of fighting. Timely replying to the Department’s notices, submitting of evidence on sources for contentious investments, such as bank statements, a flawlessly computed income statement, tax paid challan, agreement for purchase of the property, assessing officer’s lack of jurisdiction and a Bombay High Court’s precedent and all saved the day.
Like resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers are also subject to reassessments. Whenever the tax department feels that there was an income that escaped assessment, it can reopen closed tax returns for reassessments. For instance, a tax return of the assessment year 2024-25 can be reopened and issue reassessment notice up to March 31, 2028, if escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakh, i.e. within three years and up to March 31, 2030, if escaped income is more than Rs. 50 lakh, i.e. five years from the end of the relevant assessment year (the Union Budget 2024-25 reduced it from ten years to five years).
Thus, either non-resident or resident taxpayers should be more cautious, especially regarding tax implications while making the investment calls, accurately filing the return of income within the due date, and keeping all the relevant documentary evidence for a longer period and be prepared to respond timely as and when the Department seek clarifications or to contend the reopening exercise.
[The Economic Times]
