RAGHUBIR CHOUDHURY,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS WARD - 3, IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 28.02.2018 declaring total income of ₹16,03,090/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on the information derived from a survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act at Hotel Maharani, which revealed on the basis of the statement of the son of the assessee that the assessee along with 2 other persons had made an investment of ₹1,80,00,000/- towards its construction, with the assessee share being ₹ 60 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee failed to furnish cogent documentary evidence regarding the source of the funds and treated the amount of ₹60,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessment was completed assessing the total income at ₹76,03,090/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the assessee merely denied the investment but failed to produce crucial documentation to controvert the findings of the Ld. AO, particularly the sworn statement of the assessee's own son admitting to the investment. Finding the reassessment proceedings valid and noting the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's claims, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was stated by the Ld. AR that ₹60 Lakh was added on account of the statement of the assessee’s son Shri Rahul Choudhary recorded at the time of the survey but no such investment was made by the assessee. It was stated that the statement had been retracted subsequently and the actual investment was made by Shri Rahul Choudhary for ₹ 1,59,35,500/- and Shri Vikki Choudhary for ₹ 1,59,35,500/-. The Ld. AR has also filed affidavits of Shri Rahul Choudhary dated 01/11/2025, and also of the assessee Shri Raghubir Choudhury dated 14/03/2026 in support of such a claim and it is stated that Shri Rahul Choudhary had stated in the aforesaid statement recorded at the time of the survey that the approximate cost of construction of Hotel Maharani came to around ₹1,80,00,000/-, which was contributed out of the savings/capital of earlier years of Shri Raghubir Choudhury, Shri Karamvir Choudhary and Smt. Asha Choudhary (wife of Shri Raghubir Choudhury) .The Ld. DR stated that the affidavits which have been filed nor were never filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer or even before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested for admission of the same under rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the revised grounds of appeal and stated that Ground no. 5 has been taken by oversight. It was stated that as per the document filed on page no. 190 to 191 of the paper book, the statement of Rahul Choudhury was ITA No(s). 137/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-2018 retracted on 01.11.2025 while the survey had taken place on 26.09.2017. The assessee had denied any investment vide statement dated 30.06.2021. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO for re-examination. When asked whether the assessee was willing to file the valuation report before the Ld. AO, the Ld. AR assured of the same to be filed before the Ld. AO and also mentioned that the Ld. AO may conduct enquiry in this regard.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be confirmed.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has denied that he never made any investment and the investment was instead made by serial Rahul Choudhary and Shri Vikki Choudhary for ₹1,59,35,500/- each for total sum of ₹3,18,71,000/-and other than the statement of Shri Rahul Choudhary, there is no other evidence for implicating the assessee and saddle the assessee with liabilities for investment which is claimed to be never made by him, the Bench was of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to justify his stand that he never made the investment is alleged. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of the claim of no investment being made and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall also file the valuation report of the building constructed along with the ITA No(s). 137/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-2018 details of investment made by the concerned persons other than the assessee as claimed, so as to establish that the retraction of the statement was justified as the same had been retracted after merely eight years from the date of survey and further that no addition was called for in the case of the assessee. The Ld. AO is directed to reframe the assessment after considering the reply of the assessee, after examining the same and after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order