# ₹44 Lakh Cash for a Bangalore Flat: ITAT Sends It Back By Saurabh Garg, founder·5 min read·Published 2026-10-08 **Short answer:** On 29 September 2026 ITAT Bangalore sent back a ₹23,07,520 addition for unexplained investment against a buyer who paid ₹44 lakh in cash towards a ₹70 lakh flat in Malleswaram, Bangalore. The buyer says he worked in the Middle East for 11 years and relied on his NRE account. His mother and wife filed affidavits for the cash only at the Tribunal, so the Tribunal sent the whole issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh. The addition is not deleted. # ₹44 Lakh in Cash for a Bangalore Flat: ITAT Sends the Tax Addition Back, Because the Proof Came Too Late **On 29 September 2026 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Bangalore sent a ₹23,07,520 addition for unexplained investment back to the tax officer. The buyer had paid ₹44 lakh in cash towards a ₹70 lakh flat in Malleswaram. He says he worked in the Middle East for 11 years. His mother and wife put their contributions on affidavit only at the Tribunal, so the Tribunal did not decide the case. It told the Assessing Officer to look at the evidence and decide again.** ## The case The order is ITA No. 2018/Bang/2025, *Muthkumar Nagaraj Sandeep Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Bangalore*, assessment year 2015-16. Prashant Maharishi, Vice President, heard it sitting alone. The hearing closed on 25 August 2026 and the order was pronounced on 29 September 2026. It runs to 11 pages. The order does not record a finding on the buyer's residential status. What it records is his own case: in his grounds of appeal he says he "was employed in the Middle East for the past 11 years", and in 2014-15 he was Operations Manager at Alliance Facilities Management Services LLP. The Tribunal notes that he produced his payslips and "relied on his NRE account with Canara Bank". His case was handled by the International Taxation ward. ## What happened The buyer filed no return for assessment year 2015-16. The order says the department held information that he had bought property for ₹81,70,000. A show-cause notice under section 148A(b) went out on 21 March 2022. He did not respond, and a notice under section 148 followed on 31 March 2022. He then filed a return on 25 April 2022 declaring income of ₹16,980. In assessing him, the officer took the purchase price as ₹70 lakh, with stamp duty of ₹4,57,520 and registration charges of ₹82,265, a total of ₹75,39,785. The order does not reconcile the ₹81,70,000 figure with the ₹70 lakh one. The officer found that ₹44 lakh went to the sellers in cash with no documents showing where the cash came from, and that ₹65,520 of the stamp duty was also paid in cash. The buyer said ₹20,77,520 came from family savings and that ATM withdrawals over 12 months were another source. The officer added ₹23,07,520 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and assessed income at ₹23,41,480 in an order dated 23 March 2023. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition on 16 July 2025 and rejected his argument that the case could not be reopened because the addition was under ₹50 lakh. ## What the Tribunal did At the Tribunal the buyer applied under rule 29 to file new evidence: affidavits from his mother and his wife saying they gave ₹11 lakh and ₹12 lakh from their savings, and his NRE account statement showing cash withdrawals of ₹3,50,000 on 15 May 2012, ₹10,000 on 12 July 2012 and ₹1 lakh on 25 August 2012. The affidavits add up to ₹23 lakh, against the ₹20,77,520 of family savings he had put to the officer. The Tribunal did not weigh that evidence. Because "these details were not produced before the learned Assessing Officer", it chose "to restore the entire issue to the Assessing Officer". The buyer has to prove where the money came from, and the officer has to examine it and decide again. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The order does not rule on the ₹50 lakh reopening point. ## Why it matters if you buy in India from abroad The year in question was assessment year 2015-16. The notices came in 2022. The department acted on property-purchase information years after the deal, and the buyer had to rebuild the source of cash from bank records and family affidavits after the officer had already decided. On 30 September 2026 ITAT Ahmedabad sent back an NRI's [ex parte section 69 addition on a flat](/guides/nri-ahmedabad-flat-ex-parte-section-69-addition-remanded-itat-sep-2026). This is a report of one order, not tax advice. The paperwork side of buying is in our guides on [buying property in India as an NRI](/guides/nri-buying-property-in-india) and [legal due diligence before you buy](/guides/legal-due-diligence-nri-buying-property). ## FAQ **Did ITAT Bangalore delete the ₹23 lakh addition?** No. On 29 September 2026 it sent the whole issue back to the Assessing Officer, because the affidavits and bank records were filed for the first time at the Tribunal. The officer will decide afresh after examining them. **Was the buyer an NRI?** The order does not record a finding on his residential status. In his grounds he says he worked in the Middle East for 11 years, and the Tribunal notes that he relied on his NRE account with Canara Bank and produced payslips. His case sat with the International Taxation ward. **How much was paid in cash?** ₹44 lakh to the sellers and ₹65,520 of the stamp duty, on a flat bought for ₹70 lakh, with ₹5,39,785 more in stamp duty and registration. **What evidence did the buyer file at the Tribunal?** Affidavits from his mother for ₹11 lakh and his wife for ₹12 lakh, his payslips, and his Canara Bank NRE account records showing cash withdrawals of ₹3,50,000, ₹10,000 and ₹1 lakh in May, July and August 2012. His representative filed a 67-page paper book with the affidavits, the sources of funds and evidence of his employment income. **Which year was reopened, and when?** Assessment year 2015-16. The section 148A(b) notice is dated 21 March 2022 and the section 148 notice 31 March 2022. The reassessment order is dated 23 March 2023. *66 MG Road newsdesk* ## Sources - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (SMC), *Muthkumar Nagaraj Sandeep Kumar v. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Bangalore*, ITA No. 2018/Bang/2025, AY 2015-16, pronounced 29 September 2026, full text: [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52880478/](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52880478/) About the author: [Saurabh Garg](/about) Saurabh Garg has run the venture studio C4E for twenty years. He founded 66 MG Road in 2026, reads every proposal request, and replies within one business day. [saurabhgarg.com](https://saurabhgarg.com) · [@saurabh](https://x.com/saurabh) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saurabhgarg) Information on this page is as on 2026-10-08. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position. ## Related guides - [A US-Based NRI Was Taxed on His Whole Ahmedabad Flat Without a Hearing. The Tribunal Has Sent It Back.](/guides/nri-ahmedabad-flat-ex-parte-section-69-addition-remanded-itat-sep-2026) - [NRIs Buying Property in India: The Rules, the Money, the Paperwork](/guides/nri-buying-property-in-india) - [Legal Due Diligence Before an NRI Buys Property in India](/guides/legal-due-diligence-nri-buying-property) ## Compare and cost - [The NRI Property Management Companies in India: A Comparison You Can Check](/guides/best-nri-property-management-companies-india) - [What NRI Property Management Costs in India: The Four Models and What Hides in Each](/guides/nri-property-management-cost-india) - [NoBroker NRI Services Review: What the Pages Promise and What They Leave Out](/guides/nobroker-nri-services-review) --- Source: [https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-bangalore-flat-cash-purchase-section-69-remanded-itat-sep-2026](https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-bangalore-flat-cash-purchase-section-69-remanded-itat-sep-2026) · 66 MG Road. Full LLM brief: https://66mgroad.com/llms.txt