Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) who had granted partial relief to the assessee regarding an addition made under section 69A. The assessee, who had not filed a return for AY 2018-19, was subject to reassessment based on information about immovable property transactions. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1.15 crores as unexplained investment. During appeal, the assessee presented a Rectification Deed reducing their share in the properties and their investment cost.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Rectification Deed was not available during the reassessment proceedings. Since the assessee agreed to produce all documents before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh reassessment order after considering all necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under section 69A without appreciating the unexplained source of investment, and whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
ORDER PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee as the against appellate order dated 25-06-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1." Whether the learned CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,15,00,000/- made u/s.69A of the Income tax Act being unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not offer any explanations regarding the source of investment made in the two properties, which remained unexplained?" 2. "Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences during appellate proceedings without remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer?" 3." The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary." 4." It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored?"
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual has not filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2018-19. The assessment was reopened based on the information available with the department that the assessee has undertaken immovable property transactions to the tune of Rs.18.88 crores. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he is a co- owner in two immovable properties purchased by him, thereby the assessing officer concluded the investment made in immovable properties by the assessee during the year works out to Rs.1.15 crores and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein he produced the Rectification Deed reducing his share in the immovable properties from 25% to 17% relating to Survey No. 110, Amiyapur, Gandhinagar and his investment cost is Rs.47,60,000/- and similarly another property at Chandkheda, Sabarmati wherein his share of income is 5% and his investment cost is Rs.55,55,556/-. Based on the above information, Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee.
Aggrieved against the same, Revenue is in appeal before us that Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for a Remand Report from the assessing officer.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly submitted that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the Rectification Deed was not available, so that it was not produced before the Ld.A.O. However the assessee has no objection in producing all these documents before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass orders on merits of the case.
Recording the submissions of rival parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the orders passed by Lower Authorities and remit the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass fresh reassessment order after taking into account all necessary documents produced by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee should make use of this final opportunity and produce all relevant materials and documents before the JAO for passing reassessment order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.