SURESH NARAYAN SHETTY,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4246/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2026AY 2023-20243 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that documentary evidence was not properly appreciated and that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer added back Rs. 72,22,700/- as unexplained investment in property under Section 69. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a fair opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority and whether the documentary evidence was properly appreciated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Ms. Meenu Ola, Sr.DR
Pronounced: 31.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT:

The present appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 11.02.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2023-24. The basic grievance of the assessee is against exparte dismissal of the appeal by learned first appellate authority.

2.

Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 31.12.2023, declaring income of

ITA 4246/MUM/2026 SURESH NARAYAN SHETTY

Rs.16,55,470/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny to

examine large cash payment made for credit card purchases.

3.

In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short),

from time to time, called upon the assessee to furnish various information and details.

As observed by the AO, the assessee complied with the queries raised. One of the issues

flagged by the AO is with regard to purchase of an immovable property for a

consideration of Rs.90 lakhs. He called upon the assessee to prove the source of such

investments. After examining the source of investment furnished by the assessee, the

AO was of the view that the assessee was not able to prove investments to the tune of

Rs.72,22,700/-. Accordingly, he added back the said amount as unexplained investment

u/s.69 of the Act.

4.

The assessee contested the aforesaid addition by filing the appeal before learned

First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was decided ex parte and while doing

so, the addition was confirmed.

5.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on

record. It is the say of the assessee before us that various documentary evidences

including loan confirmations furnished by the assessee were not properly examined and

appreciated by the AO. He submitted, due to ex parte disposal of the appeal, the assessee

could not make proper representation before learned first appellate authority, hence, was

prevented to support his case through documentary evidences.

6.

On perusal of the materials available on record and on going through the

respective orders of the departmental authorities, we find merit in the submissions of the

ITA 4246/MUM/2026 SURESH NARAYAN SHETTY

assessee that documentary evidences furnished were not properly appreciated at the

stage of assessment. Moreover, the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent

his case before learned first appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined

to set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore the issues

arising in the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Mumbai 31.08.2026 Dated: Copy to: SURESH NARAYAN SHETTY, FLAT NO. 2502, MAYFLOWER, 1 HIRANANDANI MEADOWS,, THANE-400610, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), 2 QURESHI MANSION, GOKHALE ROAD, THANE-400604, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →