USHA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4755/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to conduct a de novo assessment based on the additional evidence, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen, purchased a property for Rs. 3.9 Crores in AY 2014-15. Her case was reopened under Section 147 as she had not filed an ITR for that year. The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147, adding Rs. 3.9 Crores as unexplained investment under Section 69, which the CIT(A) upheld.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer erred in ignoring the assessee's ITR and considering the property purchase as unexplained investment, and whether loan confirmations and ITRs of relatives should have been considered as sources of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 69,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Dedhia
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Hearing: 30.09.2025Pronounced: 30.09.2025

(Assessment Year: 2014-15) Usha Singh ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai. 192, Buena Vista Apartment, G. J. Bhosle Marg, Nariman Point, S. O. Vs. Mumbai – 400021. PAN/GIR No. AAVPS2082F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Namrata Dedhia Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR) Date of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The learned assessing officer has erred in ignoring the income tax return filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) for which stamped acknowledgement was duly furnished merely because no records of the same were available with the income tax department. Further, the learned assessing officer has erred in ignoring the computation of income and explanation provided for sources of funds and thereby considering the purchase value of such property as unexplained investment u/s. 69.

(A.Y. 2014-15) Usha Singh 2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned commissioner has erred in not considering the loan confirmations, copy of ITR and computation of income furnished for the assessee's relatives, Jaspreet Singh and Melanie Kini towards sources of funds merely because the old bank statements could not be obtained and furnished in time 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen, earning income from rentals from house property, capital gain, dividend and interest. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason that she had purchased a property for a consideration of Rs. 39,000,000/- but had not filed her return of income. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 23.01.2023 was issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 15.04.2023, being the best judgement assessment for the reason that the assessee has not complied with the said notice, thereby making addition of Rs. 39,000,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 27.05.2025 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish relevant documentary evidence in support of her claim.

5.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has filed her return of income physically on 31.07.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 2,41,240/- and having exempt income of Rs. 1,06,69,400/- which includes dividend and long-term capital gain from sale of listed equity shares and mutual funds. The ld. AR brought our attention to the acknowledgement for the ITR (A.Y. 2014-15) Usha Singh and further stated that the assessee due to old was unable to collate the relevant documents to substantiate the source of the investment for purchase of the property. The ld. AR for the assessee filed an application for the admission of additional evidence containing paper book pages 1 to 83 and prayed that the same be admitted and adjudicated.

7.

The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue vehemently objected to the same for the reason that the assessee has failed to furnish of these documents before the lower authorities.

8.

Upon perusal of the rival contentions, we deem it fit to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and to remand the same to the file of ld. AO for de novo assessment on the basis of the additional evidence filed by the assessee in view of the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the assessment proceeding without any undue delay on her side and the ld. AO is directed to pass a de novo assessment order on the basis of the submission of the assessee and on the merits of the case and in accordance with law.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →