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

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

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 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. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025 (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,