UJWALA PURSHOTTAM MUNGEKAR,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4279/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2026AY 2016-20179 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence due to the assessee's medical condition and the Chartered Accountant's alleged inaction. The Tribunal found the additional evidence crucial for a just decision and decided to remand the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property and the stamp duty value exceeded the purchase consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and Section 69 read with Section 115BBE for alleged unexplained investment and income. The assessee contested these additions, citing reasons for not producing crucial documents earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and Section 69 were justified, considering the request for admission of additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Bal Krishna Yadav, (Sr.DR)
Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 15.09.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The instant appeal emanating from the appellate order dated 06.03.2026 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-

P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 06.03.2024 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment, which is bad in law, void ab initio, and without proper justification.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), despite a specific request made by the appellant for valuation determination as per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,28,800 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being the alleged difference between the stamp duty value (59,78,800) and the purchase consideration (248,50,000), without properly appreciating the facts, submissions and valuation evidence on record.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.51,79,000 under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without adequate justification and contrary to the evidences produced by the appellant.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in adopting the stamp duty valuation as on the date of registration of the sale deed, instead of considering the stamp duty valuation as on the date of agreement to sell, as per the proviso to section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an Individual who did not file her return of income u/s 139(1) 0f the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, based on the information that she had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.59,78,800/-.In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted that she sold a self-occupied house property for a total consideration of Rs.21 lakh and P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar the sale proceeds were used to acquire another house property at the cost of Rs.48.50 lakh in the same year and also the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.27.50 lakh from a close relative. According to the AO, it transpired that she made payment of Rs.48,50,000/- for purchase of aforesaid immovable properties whereas consideration assessed by the stamp duty authority was Rs.59,78,800/- for which the assessee made payment of stamp duty value of Rs.2,99,000/- @ 5% of the consideration value of Rs.59,78,800/-. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, consideration of Rs.11,28,800/- was chargeable to tax under the head Income from Other under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.1 The AO further noted that in response to the notices issued the assessee neither filed her return of income offering the above transactions to tax nor explained the source of the aforesaid transactions. She did not offer explanation with supporting documentary evidence about the nature and source of the investments for the year under consideration despite ample opportunities afforded through service of notices and show cause notices registered with department’s portal. Further, she failed to file her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration which conclusively proved that assessee had neither disclosed such investments in her

P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar return nor offered to tax the income earned out of such investments for the year under consideration. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of source of investments in purchase of immovable property of addition of Rs.51,79,000/- [Rs.48,50,000/- (+) Rs.2,99,000/- (+) Rs.30,000/-],was made for purchase of immovable property treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Further, it was seen that the assessee had made payment for purchase of immovable properties of Rs.48,50,000/- and the stamp duty value paid by her of Rs.2,99,000/- as assessed by SVA at Rs.59,78,800/- for the assessment year under consideration. Keeping in view that no explanation with supporting documentary evidence was offered by her in respect of said transaction, an amount of Rs.11,28,800/- [Rs.59,78,800/- (-) Rs.48,50,000/-] was treated as the income chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and added to her total income for the year under consideration.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority contesting the addition. However, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO with the observations that as far as the differential amount of Rs. 11,28,810/- was concerned, for the purpose of section 56(2) of the Act, the assessee had not furnished any explanation or material submission in this regard. In so far as the Unexplained

P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar investment in immovable property is concerned, the addition was also upheld as the assessee did not furnish any evidence to support sale /disposal of any property evidencing receipt of amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings subsequently. With regard to amount of Rs. 27,50,000/- purportedly received from ‘close relatives’, nothing had been furnished during the assessment proceedings or during the subsequent appellate proceedings to establish identity or any material was brought up evidencing creditworthiness of such ‘close relatives’. He also confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,99,000/- on account of stamp duty and Rs. 30,000/- had been added on account of registration charges, for want of any explanation about the source of such expenditure incurred by her.

5.

In the course of hearing by the Bench, the asssessee made a request for admission of certain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 stating that she is a senior citizen aged 69 years and presently suffering from cancer. The assessment proceedings were handled by the then Chartered Accountant. However, the crucial documents explaining the source of funds were not called for or filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The addition pertaining to the loan of Rs. 27,50,000/-

P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar received from her son-in-law was sourced through a loan availed by the him from IDBI Bank and was directly advanced to her. The supporting documentary evidences, including bank records and loan documents, were now being produced. These documents go to the root of the matter and are essential for proper adjudication of the issue. Non-filing of these documents earlier was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide reasons and circumstances explained above.

5.

1 It is further submitted that in terms of Rule 29 the Tribunal has the power to admit additional evidence where it is necessary for rendering a just decision or where sufficient opportunity was not granted earlier. The appellant further prayed that the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee also made written submission on merits of the additions made submitting that the source of the said property was duly explained and substantiated. Further, after considering the valuation report, the variation does not exceed 10%, hence, no addition is warranted.

6.

We have carefully considered all the relevant aspects of case. With respect to scope and ambit of Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, it is fairly settled that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional

P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar evidence in the interest of justice once it affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. The aforesaid rule is made, enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion if it holds the view that such additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that this evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect. In the present case, the reason which was given by the assessee in support of its plea for admission of additional evidence was that the assessee, who is a senior citizen afflicted with cancer, could not produce these records before the lower authorities due to the inaction of the Chartered Accountant concerned.

6.

1 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and we feel that because of certain justifiable

P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar reasons the assessee could not advance her arguments/submissions to contest the case fully before the lower authorities. Accepting the request of the ld.AR, we give one more opportunity to the assessee submit the evidences concerning the issue in question, with grounds so raised by the assessee before the AO, to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings before the ld. AO. In so far as the additional evidences are concerned,we find that the same go into the root of the dispute and therefore, are required for proper evaluation and adjudication of the impugned issues. However, to be fair to both the parties we are inclined to remand the entire case to the AO for framing assessment de novo. Needless to state, he would allow adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee who would at liberty to adduce any additional evidence before the assessee to substantiate her case.

7.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which we are not adjudicating and they shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.

P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2016-17 Ujwala Purshottam Mungekar

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15/09/2026. (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 15.09.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →