KASHMIR KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7408/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 September 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to obtain a remand report from the field authorities, allowing the assessee three effective opportunities to prove her case.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by an addition of Rs. 13,74,557/- made under section 69 for unexplained investment. The assessee had filed additional evidence before the lower appellate authority to explain the source of funds, which was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate authority was justified in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The need to provide the assessee with an opportunity to prove the source of unexplained investments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7408/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. National Kashmir Kaur, Faceless Appeal I-91-B, First Floor, Platinum Centre (NFAC), Enclave, Sector- 18, Rohini Delhi Sector-15, North West Delhi- 89 PAN: CAPPK6739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Shailender Bajaj, CA Department by Sh. Mangali Venkata Ramesh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1089125833(1), dated 21.05.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower

ITA No.7408/Del/2026 appellate findings making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs. 13,74,557/- which forms the sole substantive issue for the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

3.

That being the case, it is noticed from a perusal of the case record that the assessee had sought to explain for source of her jewellery sold as well as alleged unexplained investments by way of filing her additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, in the lower appellate proceedings which has been summarily rejected therein. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s additional evidence indeed goes to the root of the matter and possibility of some communication gaps in such an instance could not be per se ruled out. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to admit the assessee’s above additional evidence and direct the learned CIT(A)/NFAC_to get the necessary remand report from the field authorities subject to a rider that the tax payer/appellant herein shall plead and prove her case within three effective opportunities at her own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.7408/Del/2026 All other remaining issues between the parties are kept open at this stage.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2026. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.09.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →