PREMLATA JAISWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) r/w 147 dated 24-03-2025, wherein the AO made an addition of Rs. 58,27,174/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has no independent source of income and during the relevant assessment year, the assessee’s husband, a Non-Resident Indian, employed in Nigeria for last many years, booked an under-construction residential flat in the name of the assessee however, the entire investment in the property was made by the assessee’s husband out of his own funds and there is no financial contribution whatsoever made by the assessee nor there is any corresponding movement of funds through her bank account in relation to the subject transaction. It was submitted that during the course of the assessment proceeding, the assessee was unaware of the notices issued by the department. Upon becoming aware of the proceedings, she promptly furnished the response dated 15-03-2025 on the ITBA Portal. Thereafter, a further show cause was issued by the AO, calling for documentary evidences. Being unfamiliar with tax laws and procedural requirements, the assessee sought an adjournment to collate and furnish necessary documentation. However, the same was not granted, and the assessment order dated 24-03-2025 under section 143(3) read with section 147 came to be passed by the AO, making an addition of Rs. 58,27,174/- towards the alleged unexplained investment.

It was submitted that the assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein certain details were furnished. However, in absence of complete evidences, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. It was submitted that subsequently, during the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee furnished all crucial documentation including details of her husband’s employment and his bank statements

It was submitted that the additional evidences so sought to be submitted could not be furnished before the lower authorities due to circumstances beyond her control, including lack of awareness of the proceedings at the relevant time. It was submitted that the additional evidences now sought to be adduced go to the root of the matter and are crucial for determining the correct nature and source of the investment and therefore, in the interest of the substantial justice, the additional evidences may be allowed to be taken on record and in this regard, the assessee has filed an application for submission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd (2011) 197 taxman 128, and decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram (Dead) through LTS vs. CIT(2013) 357 ITR 0133, and K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1526.

The Ld. DR has been heard, who has submitted that ample opportunities has been granted by the AO and thereafter, by the Ld. CIT(A) and at the same time, it was fairly submitted that where the Bench so decide, the matter need to be remitted to the file of AO for necessary verification.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue under consideration relates to source of

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.