Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file her income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 and was identified as a non-filer. Information was received that she made an investment in an immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 148A(b) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee eventually filed a return declaring income from other sources.
Held
The Assessing Officer treated the assessee's 50% share of the investment in the property as unexplained and made an addition under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's action. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee's own limited contribution and summarily confirmed the entire share of investment as unexplained.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 47,54,000/- as unexplained investment and in confirming disallowance of deduction and charging of interest. The Tribunal remands the matter to the CIT(A) to re-examine the evidence.
Sections Cited
69, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 148A, 148, 142(1), 133(6), Chapter VI-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ORDER
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds:
1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that reopening of assessment of the appellant is invalid in law.
2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs.47,54 Rs.47,54,000/- u/s 69 r w s 115BBE of the Income Tax u/s 69 r w s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. Act, 1961 as unexplained investment.
3. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming disallowance Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming disallowance Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming disallowance of deduc of deduction of Rs.12,873/- under Chapter VI under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged charged of of u/s u/s 234A 234A and and u/s u/s 234B 234B of of the the Income Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her regular return of income for the year under not file her regular return of income for the year under not file her regular return of income for the year under consideration. Consequently, the assessee was identified as a non- consideration. Consequently, the assessee was identified as a non consideration. Consequently, the assessee was identified as a non filer by the Income-tax Depa tax Department and statutory notice under the rtment and statutory notice under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued. No compliance thereto was made. issued. No compliance thereto was made.
2.1 A specific information was received that the assessee had pecific information was received that the assessee had pecific information was received that the assessee had made investment in an immovable property, namely Flat No. 1002, made investment in an immovable property, namely F made investment in an immovable property, namely F 10th Floor, Neelam CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 115, Model Town, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 115, Model Town, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS Ltd., situated at Plot No. 115, Model Town, Andheri (West), Mumbai, amounting to ₹94,85,601/- Andheri (West), Mumbai, amounting to -.
2.2 Considering the non Considering the non-filing of return and the said investment, filing of return and the said investment, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148A(b) of the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148A(b) of the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 10.02.2023, providing opportunity to explain the source the Act on 10.02.2023, providing opportunity to explain the source the Act on 10.02.2023, providing opportunity to explain the source of of of investment. investment. investment. The The The assessee, assessee, assessee, however, however, however, failed failed failed to to to respond. respond. respond. Accordingly, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on Accordingly, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on Accordingly, order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 13.03.2023 and notice under section 148 was issued on the same 13.03.2023 and notice under section 148 was issued on the same 13.03.2023 and notice under section 148 was issued on the same date, after obtaining requisite approval of the specified authority. date, after obtaining requisite approval of the specified authority date, after obtaining requisite approval of the specified authority 2.3 In response, the assessee filed her return of income In response, the assessee filed her return of income In response, the assessee filed her return of income on 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of ₹4,01,250/-. 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid investment. upon the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid investment. upon the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid investment. In reply, the assessee submitted that the property In reply, the assessee submitted that the property in question was in question was wholly owned by her late husband, and that her name was reflected wholly owned by her late husband, and that her name was reflected wholly owned by her late husband, and that her name was reflected merely as a “nominee”. It was explained that her husband, a merely as a “nominee”. It was explained that her husband, a merely as a “nominee”. It was explained that her husband, a salaried employee, who unfortunately expired in May 2021 due to salaried employee, who unfortunately expired in May 2021 due to salaried employee, who unfortunately expired in May 2021 due to Covid-19, had made almost the entire payment from 19, had made almost the entire payment from 19, had made almost the entire payment from his salary savings, retirement benefits, and LIC proceeds received upon his savings, retirement benefits, and LIC proceeds received upon his savings, retirement benefits, and LIC proceeds received upon his death.
2.4 The AO, however, obtained copy of the registered purchase The AO, however, obtained copy of the registered purchase The AO, however, obtained copy of the registered purchase deed from Joint Registrar stamp duty Joint Registrar stamp duty through notice under section through notice under section 133(6) and found that both the assessee and h 133(6) and found that both the assessee and her husband were er husband were reflected as joint purchasers, each with 50% share. The AO also reflected as joint purchasers, each with 50% share. The AO also reflected as joint purchasers, each with 50% share. The AO also noted that the public provident fund public provident fund (PPF) statement produced was (PPF) statement produced was incomplete and failed to establish withdrawal of incomplete and failed to establish withdrawal of ₹ ₹23,33,197/- as claimed. Further, the payment schedule furnis claimed. Further, the payment schedule furnished by the assessee hed by the assessee regarding payment made by regarding payment made by her late husband Mr. Jayant Amritlal her late husband Mr. Jayant Amritlal Purohit was found inconsistent with the terms of the registered was found inconsistent with the terms of the registered was found inconsistent with the terms of the registered agreement, as substantial payments were shown to have been made agreement, as substantial payments were shown to have been made agreement, as substantial payments were shown to have been made much after the stipulated period. much after the stipulated period. The Assessing Officer noted that ng Officer noted that as per the sale agreement complete payment was to be made within as per the sale agreement complete payment was to be made within as per the sale agreement complete payment was to be made within 15 days from the execution of the agreement whereas payment 15 days from the execution of the agreement whereas payment 15 days from the execution of the agreement whereas payment details submitted by the assessee made payment of Rs.48,85,000/- details submitted by the assessee made payment of Rs.48,85,000/ details submitted by the assessee made payment of Rs.48,85,000/ after five years of the execution of the agr after five years of the execution of the agreement and source of eement and source of investment remain unexplained. investment remain unexplained. In the absence of proper In the absence of proper reconciliation, the AO concluded that source of 50% share of reconciliation, the AO concluded that source of 50% share of reconciliation, the AO concluded that source of 50% share of investment attributable to the assessee, amounting to ₹47,54,000/- investment attributable to the assessee, amounting to investment attributable to the assessee, amounting to , remained unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the Act, , remained unexplained within the meaning of section , remained unexplained within the meaning of section and accordingly made addition under section 69 read with section and accordingly made addition under section 69 read with section and accordingly made addition under section 69 read with section 115BBE for unexplained investment observing as under: unexplained investment observing as under: unexplained investment observing as under:
“In this case, the assessee had purchased a Flat No. 1002, 10th In this case, the assessee had purchased a Flat No. 1002, 10th In this case, the assessee had purchased a Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor, Neelam CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, Model Floor, Neelam CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, Model Floor, Neelam CHS LTD situated at Plot no.115, Model Town, Andheri West Mumbai Andheri West Mumbai-400053 on 30.03.2016 jointly with her 400053 on 30.03.2016 jointly with her husband Shri Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consideration of Rs. husband Shri Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consideration of Rs. husband Shri Jayant Amritlal Purohit in sale consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- stamp duty has been charged on the value of stamp duty has been charged on the value of Rs.94,85,601/ Rs.94,85,601/-. The assessee was asked to submit source of investment The assessee was asked to submit source of investment The assessee was asked to submit source of investment of Rs. 95,08,000/- [90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78,000 stamp [90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78,000 stamp [90,00,000 purchase consideration+ 4,78,000 stamp duty+30,000 registry charges). The assessee vide reply dated duty+30,000 registry charges). The assessee vide reply dated duty+30,000 registry charges). The assessee vide reply dated 28.08.2023 has stated that she has not contributed any funds 28.08.2023 has stated that she has not contributed any funds 28.08.2023 has stated that she has not contributed any funds for the said flat, whole purchase consideration was paid by her for the said flat, whole purchase consideration was paid by her for the said flat, whole purchase consideration was paid by her husband as the flat was wholly owned by him (100% usband as the flat was wholly owned by him (100% usband as the flat was wholly owned by him (100% ownership). Her name was mentioned in the agreement only as a ownership). Her name was mentioned in the agreement only as a ownership). Her name was mentioned in the agreement only as a nominee. On perusal of agreement, contention of the assessee found On perusal of agreement, contention of the assessee found On perusal of agreement, contention of the assessee found wrong. Ownership share has not been mentioned in the wrong. Ownership share has not been mentioned in the wrong. Ownership share has not been mentioned in the agreement which means bot agreement which means both husband and wife have equal h husband and wife have equal share i.e. 50% each. Further the assessee failed to explain source share i.e. 50% each. Further the assessee failed to explain source share i.e. 50% each. Further the assessee failed to explain source of investment of her husband also. As the assessee has not of investment of her husband also. As the assessee has not of investment of her husband also. As the assessee has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such investment. Hence, assess source of such investment. Hence, assessee's share is treated as ee's share is treated as unexplained investment. The income earned during the year has unexplained investment. The income earned during the year has unexplained investment. The income earned during the year has not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid. not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid. not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid.
In the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, In the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, In the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, source of investment in immovable property a source of investment in immovable property amounting to Rs. mounting to Rs. 47,54,000/-(50% share of Rs.95,08,000/ (50% share of Rs.95,08,000/-) remain unexplained ) remain unexplained as per the section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, an as per the section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, an as per the section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, an addition of Rs. 47,54,000/ addition of Rs. 47,54,000/-has been made u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE has been made u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and added to the total income of of the IT Act and added to the total income of the assess assessee.”
In appeal, the assessee furnished a detailed statement of In appeal, the assessee furnished a detailed statement of In appeal, the assessee furnished a detailed statement of payments asserting that payments asserting that ₹96,21,000/- had been made out of her had been made out of her husband’s resources and husband’s resources and ₹2,34,000/- had been contributed by her. had been contributed by her. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank transactions but noticed The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank transactions but noticed The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank transactions but noticed discrepancies. He observed that several payments were routed discrepancies. He observed that several payments were routed discrepancies. He observed that several payments were routed through accounts other than the disclosed pension account of the through accounts other than the disclosed pension account of the through accounts other than the disclosed pension account of the husband; certain payments were m husband; certain payments were made from joint accounts with the ade from joint accounts with the assessee and daughter; some were claimed to be out of LIC assessee and daughter; some were claimed to be out of LIC assessee and daughter; some were claimed to be out of LIC proceeds or loans from relatives, but were not corroborated with proceeds or loans from relatives, but were not corroborated with proceeds or loans from relatives, but were not corroborated with verifiable documents. The CIT(A) therefore concluded that the verifiable documents. The CIT(A) therefore concluded that the verifiable documents. The CIT(A) therefore concluded that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the sources of establish the sources of investment of her husband as well. Consequently, he upheld the investment of her husband as well. Consequently, he upheld the investment of her husband as well. Consequently, he upheld the AO’s action in treating the assessee’s 50% share, i.e., ₹47,54,000/-, AO’s action in treating the assessee’s 50% share, i.e., AO’s action in treating the assessee’s 50% share, i.e., as unexplained investment. as unexplained investment. The relevant analysis done relevant analysis done by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
Date Amt Explanation by the Analysis & decision Analysis & decision appellant 17-Sep-14 24,30,000 This is Mr. Jayant account Mr. Jayant Amrital Purohit, husband Mr. Jayant Amrital Purohit, husband of the appellant was employed with of the appellant was employed with Municipal Municipal Corporation Corporation of of Greater Greater Mumbai "MCGM" and retired from Mumbai "MCGM" and retired from service 2013. The appellant had service 2013. The appellant had submitted the account details of his submitted the account details of his pension benefit for Bank of India a/c pension benefit for Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228 However it is no. 0051101000 observed that this payment was observed that this payment was made through Bank of India a/c no made through Bank of India a/c no 005110100046237. Thus the source 005110100046237. Thus the source of this payment is not verifiable. of this payment is not verifiable. 14-Nov-14 3,51,000/- This is the pension account The appellant had submitted the The appellant had submitted the of Mr. Jayant payment was made from his husband t was made from his husband account out of his pension benefit. account out of his pension benefit. The pension benefit had received in The pension benefit had received in alc for Bank alc for Bank of of India India a/c a/c no. no. 005110100046228 However it is 005110100046228 However it is observed that this payment was observed that this payment was made through Bank of India a/c no made through Bank 016812110000211. Thus the source 016812110000211. Thus the of this payment is not verifiable. of this payment is not verifiable. 20-Dec-17 4,05,000/- This is Mr. Jayant account It is observed that this payment was It is observed that this payment was made through Bank NKGSB a/c no made through Bank NKGSB a/c no 92100100000074 92100100000074 However However the the appellant had not explained the appellant had not explained the source of such payment. Thus the source of such payment. Thus the source source of of this this payment payment is is not not verifiable. 01-Jan-18 4,50,000/- This is Mr. Jayant account It is observed that this payment was It is observed that this payment was made through Bank NKGSB a/c no made through Bank NKGSB a/c no 92100100000074 92100100000074 However However the the appellant had not explained the appellant had not explained the source of such payment. Thus the source of such payment. Thus the source rce of of this this payment payment is is not not verifiable. 17-Mar-15 10,00,000/- This is salary account of Mr. The appellant had submitted the The appellant had submitted the Jayant payment was made from his husband payment was made from his husband account out of his pension benefit. account out of his pension benefit. The pension benefit had received in The pension benefit had received in a/c for Bank Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228. However it is 005110100046228. However it is observed that the appellant had observed that the appellant had submitted the bank statement only till submitted the bank statement only till date 09.02.2015 but the payment date 09.02.2015 but the payment has been made on 17 March 2015, has been made on 17 March 2015, the the appellant appellant had had not not able able to to explained the source of payment. explained the source of payment. Thus the source of this payment e source of this payment is not verifiable. verifiable. 18-Aug-21 49,85,000/- 1) Amount of The appellant had submitted the The appellant had submitted the Rs.22,08,900/was paid out SB payment was made from SB payment was made from of LIC proceeds received on proceeds received out of LIC policy in proceeds received out of LI death of my husband is bank a/c NKGSB account bank bank a/c NKGSB account bank received in my NKGSB 092100100000089 and thereafter 092100100000089 and thereafter account bank they transferred in another they transferred in another 092100100000089 and account NKGSB 092100100000 account NKGSB 092100100000 from there | have 074 and from there the payment 074 and from there the payment transferred it to NKGSB for purchase of property had for purchase of property had 092100100000 074 made. The appellant's claim is not made. The appell 2) Rs.20,00,000/- taken tenable because the claim is tenable because the claim is Daughter from Hemali as without any supporting without any supporting loan. She is salaried documents along with bank documents along with bank employee. statement. statement. There There is is no no that the proceeds from LIC 3) Balance was paid from dispute that accumulated funds in had received but this proceeds has had received but this proceeds has ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 the bank account been utilized for purchasing this been utilized for purchasing this property needs bank statements. property needs bank statements. But the appellant had submitted But the appellant had submitted bank statement for limited period only bank statement for limited period only for bank alc of Bank of India a/c for bank alc of Bank of India a/c no. 005110100046228. Further no. 005110100046228. Further the credit worthiness and the credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction genuineness of t related to daughter Hemali has related to daughter Hemali has not proved. No ITR Banks not proved. No ITR Banks statement statement etc. etc. has has submitted submitted of of daughter Hemali. Further the daughter Hemali. Further the appellant had also not submitted any appellant had also not submitted any evidences for accumulated fund evidences for accumulated fund Therefore the source of this refore the source of this payment is not verifiable. payment is not verifiable. 16-May-13 1,17,000/- Amount paid from my The appellant has not produced the The appellant has not produced the account was paid out document of loan taken from brother document of loan taken from brother amount of received from my law to substantiate its law to substantiate its Brother in Law claim. The credit worthiness and claim. The credit worthiness and Rs.2,40,000/- in genuineness genuineness of of the the loan loan Sept and Oct 2012 transaction related to Brother transaction related to Brother Law has not not proved. No ITR Banks statement statement etc. etc. has has submitted submitted of of Brother in Law. Therefore the source Brother in Law. Therefore the source of this payment is not verifiable. of this payment is not verifiable. 26-Jun-13 1,17,000/- Amount paid from my The appellant has not produced the appellant has not produced the account was paid out document of loan taken from brother document of loan taken from brother amount of received from my in law to substantiate its claim. The in law to substantiate its claim. The The Brother in Law credit worthiness and genuineness of credit worthiness and genuineness of Rs.2,40,000/- in the loan transaction related to Brother the loan transaction related to Brother in Law has not proved. No ITR Banks Sept and Oct 2012 in Law has not proved. No ITR Banks statement statement etc. etc. has has submitted submitted of of Brother in Law. Therefore the source r in Law. Therefore the source payment of is this not verifiable. payment of is this 4. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat in question was material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat in question was material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat in question was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her husband for purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her a total consideration of ₹95,08,000/-. the assessee was having 50% a total consideration of the assessee was having 50% share in the property and therefore, was asked to explain the share in the property and therefore, was asked to explain the share in the property and therefore, was asked to explain the source of said 50%. source of said 50%. The assessee’s explanation throughout has The assessee’s explanation throughout has been that the purchase consideration was funded predominantly by been that the purchase consideration was funded pred been that the purchase consideration was funded pred her late husband out of salary savings, retirement dues, pension, her late husband out of salary savings, retirement dues, pension, her late husband out of salary savings, retirement dues, pension, and LIC proceeds, and that her role was limited. The record further and LIC proceeds, and that her role was limited. The record further and LIC proceeds, and that her role was limited. The record further ITA No. 4879/MUM/2025 shows that assessee had, before the CIT(A), furnished details of shows that assessee had, before the CIT(A), furnished details of shows that assessee had, before the CIT(A), furnished details of payments, but the CIT(A) rejected the same p payments, but the CIT(A) rejected the same primarily on the ground rimarily on the ground that certain bank accounts were not properly explained, that some that certain bank accounts were not properly explained, that some that certain bank accounts were not properly explained, that some transactions were made from joint accounts, and that supporting transactions were made from joint accounts, and that supporting transactions were made from joint accounts, and that supporting documents for LIC proceeds, alleged loans, and accumulated funds documents for LIC proceeds, alleged loans, and accumulated funds documents for LIC proceeds, alleged loans, and accumulated funds were not fully produced. were not fully produced.
4.1 It is also noted that while the CIT(A) analysed certain o noted that while the CIT(A) analysed certain o noted that while the CIT(A) analysed certain payments, but he failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee’s payments, but he failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee’s payments, but he failed to properly adjudicate upon the assessee’s own limited contribution of ₹2,34,000/-, and summarily confirmed own limited contribution of , and summarily confirmed the entire 50% share of investment as unexplained without the entire 50% share of investment as unexplained without the entire 50% share of investment as unexplained without examining the evidentiary worth of each source in detail. Further, ntiary worth of each source in detail. Further, ntiary worth of each source in detail. Further, the finding that the daughter of the assessee was not filing return of the finding that the daughter of the assessee was not filing return of the finding that the daughter of the assessee was not filing return of income cannot by itself be determinative, in absence of enquiry into income cannot by itself be determinative, in absence of enquiry into income cannot by itself be determinative, in absence of enquiry into the actual source of deposits and transfers into the relevant the actual source of deposits and transfers into the relevant the actual source of deposits and transfers into the relevant accounts.
4.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is willing to file all necessary documents in support of assessee is willing to file all necessary documents in support of assessee is willing to file all necessary documents in support of sources as pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A). sources as pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A).
4.3 Having regard to the peculiar facts, the death of the primary Having regard to the peculiar facts, the death of the primary Having regard to the peculiar facts, the death of the primary purchaser (assessee’s husband), and the consistent stand of the purchaser (assessee’s husband), and the consistent stand of the purchaser (assessee’s husband), and the consistent stand of the assessee that she is willing to produce all supporting documents assessee that she is willing to produce all supporting documents assessee that she is willing to produce all supporting documents such as bank statements, LIC proceeds and retirement benefit such as bank statements, LIC proceeds and retirement benefit such as bank statements, LIC proceeds and retirement benefit details, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of ils, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of ils, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of substantial justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the substantial justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the substantial justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to substantiate her explanation. assessee to substantiate her explanation.
4.4 Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the impugned issue and res impugned issue and restore the matter to his file with a direction to tore the matter to his file with a direction to examine afresh the entire evidences that may be furnished by the examine afresh the entire evidences that may be furnished by the examine afresh the entire evidences that may be furnished by the assessee regarding sources of payment for the purchase of property. assessee regarding sources of payment for the purchase of property. assessee regarding sources of payment for the purchase of property. The assessee is directed to fully co The assessee is directed to fully co-operate and furnish all relevant operate and furnish all relevant documents including complete bank statements, LIC policy ents including complete bank statements, LIC policy ents including complete bank statements, LIC policy proceeds, retirement benefits, and loan confirmations, if any as proceeds, retirement benefits, and loan confirmations, if any as proceeds, retirement benefits, and loan confirmations, if any as pointed out in impugned order by the ld Cit(A). The ld CIT(A) shall pointed out in impugned order by the ld Cit(A). The ld CIT(A) shall pointed out in impugned order by the ld Cit(A). The ld CIT(A) shall then pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of then pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of then pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. o the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.