ROSALIE MERY, REDDIAR PALAYAM,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-4, PONDICHERRY, PONDICHERRY

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ीयस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ीपदमावती यस, लेखा सद�के सम� BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 634/Chny/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rosalie Mery Reddiar Vs. The ITO, Palayam, Ward-4, Pondicherry. No.45, Seventh Cross Friends Nagar- Reddiar Palayam, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu-605 010. [PAN: AEVPM9292F] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate. ��थ�कीओरसे/ Respondent by Mr. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 04.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Ld. AR, Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate, drew our attention to the petition filed for admission of additional evidence. He submits that due to the circumstances and constraints at the relevant point of time, certain crucial

2 ITA No. 634/Chny/2026 evidence substantiating the explanation with reference to the alleged unexplained money as held by the AO could not be filed in the assessment proceedings as well as the first appellate proceedings. He drew our attention to para No. 3 of the petition and submits that the affidavit of the purchaser confirming the agreed sale consideration and the computation of total income demonstrating that the said transaction has been duly considered under the head "Capital Gains" and no taxable gain arises were not before the AO, which goes to the root of the matter establishing the source and nature of the amount received. 3. Ld. DR, Mr. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT, vehemently opposed the same and drew our attention to page No. 8 of the impugned order and argued vehemently that no remand is necessary for the AO's fresh consideration. 4. After hearing both the parties, we note that admittedly the AO found cash deposits in the assessee's account and added the said amount in the absence of proper explanation and supporting documents, which is clear from para No. 6 of the assessment order. Further, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same taking into account the sale consideration reflected in Document No. 1739 dated 29.03.2012. The only request made by the ld. AR is that the affidavit of the purchaser confirming the agreed sale consideration and his computation of total income under the head "Capital

3 ITA No. 634/Chny/2026 Gains" showing the offering of capital gains vide additional documents Nos. 1 and 2, admittedly, the said documentary evidence was not before the AO and the ld. CIT(A), which is evident from para No. 6 of the assessment order and page No. 8 of the impugned order. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the said additional evidence is necessary for fair adjudication of the dispute and, therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the said additional evidence and pass the order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 20.07.2026 MM आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant,

4 ITA No. 634/Chny/2026 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF.

MANIS Digitally signed by MANISH H MISHRA Date: MISHR 2026.07.23 09:34:00 A +05'30'