ASHARF ALI ABDUL KADER MUSLIM VEETTIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian. The assessee is an executive director of Lulu Group International, headquarters in Abu Dhabi, UAE, and derives his income primarily from sources outside India. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee had invested in sahare of “Cochin International Airport Limited”. The Ld. AO framed the assessment and added in following heads: i. Addition of Rs. 9,55,560/-as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 on account of property registration fees; ii. Addition amount to Rs. 1,68,000/- as income from house property; iii. Addition amount to Rs. 16,25,000/-as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 on account of investment in shares. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Only the addition was sustained amount to Rs.16,25,000/- which is challenged before the Bench.

The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 42 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the addition was made u/s. 69 relating to investment in the share of Cochin International Airport Limited [CIAL]. The payment of Rs. 16,25,000/- was made on 12.08.2015 towards the right issue of 32,500 shares of CIAL @ Rs.50/- per share. The submission was supported by the copy of share application from, the share ledger folio and evidencing allotment of shares. But before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was unable to produce the payment details. The Ld. AR further argued that the additional evidence is duly filed before the bench related to the payment on account of Rs. 16,25,000/- for purchasing the share of CIAL through Lulu International Exchange at Abu Dhabi, UAE. The relevant documents are duly enclosed in the paper book as additional evidence. The Ld. AR prayed for setting aside the appeal before the Ld. AO for verification of the evidence.

The Ld. DR argued, but had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that an amount of Rs.16,25,000/- was investmented in share of CIAL. The Ld. AR submitted that the relevant evidences had already been furnished before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). It was further contended that the details of payment for purchasing the share of CIAL is obtained now, the assessee has also submitted supporting details, which are placed in the APB. Accordingly, we accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim by placing the additional evidences before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification of the aforesaid additions. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. AO in the set-aside proceedings. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and all evidences and documents filed shall be duly considered in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and act diligently for expeditious disposal of the assessment proceedings.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 4503/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th day of September 2026.