RASHMI ROOPAL,THANE vs. WARD 3(3)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1988/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 April 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restoring the issue to the AO was unwarranted as the AO had already examined the evidence and accepted the source of investment in his remand report. The addition made in the assessee's hands was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to unexplained investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an ex-parte addition as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) restored the issue to the AO, considering documents filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue to the AO without adjudicating on merits, despite the AO accepting the explanation of investment sources in his remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.R, Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08/04/2026Pronounced: 24/04/2026

PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 26.08.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12.

ITA No.1988/Ahd/2025 [Rashmi Roopal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was reopened on the basis of information in the possession of the AO that the assessee has purchased immovable property amounting to Rs.67,76,500/- in Mumbai, but, no return of income was filed by the assessee, the investment in the property remaining unexplained. During assessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued and accordingly, the assessment was framed ex parte u/s.144 of the Act making addition of the investment made in immovable property amounting to Rs.67,76,500/- to the income of the assessee as investment made from unexplained sources.

3.

The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, in turn, restored the issue back to the file of the AO noting that the assessee had filed certain documents before him which indicated prima facie case of the assessee and, therefore, in the interest of justice, he restored the issue back to the file of the AO to reconsider the issue.

4.

Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in setting aside the appellate order to the file of the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind to the matter and issued a remand report. This action is in violation of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 144

ITA No.1988/Ahd/2025 [Rashmi Roopal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 –

r.w.s. 147 of Act without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, despite having the power and obligation to do so under section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts to consider the remand report dated 11.08.2020 submitted by the Assessing Officer, which clearly accepted the evidences and contentions submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and no adverse comments have been given for sources of Investments of Rs.67,76,500/- which is subject matter of dispute in assessment order. This omission renders the appellate order arbitrary and non-speaking. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts passed the appellate order without granting the appellant an opportunity for a video hearing, despite multiple submissions and requests made during the appellate proceedings. This constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts treating the appeal as allowed for statistical purposes without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant, despite having sufficient material and verified facts on record to decide the appeal on merits and during the course of appellate hearing, various notices were issued by ld CIT(A), NFAC which were duly compiled. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to delete entire addition made by AO for Rs 67,76,500/- instead of setting aside the matter to the file of the AO. The ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that post of National Faceless Appeal, the ld CIT(A) has issued various notices, no further specific question was asked to appellant and substantially all such notices were complied with. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The solitary contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ignoring the entire proceedings which took place before him which included:  the assessee filing all evidences explaining the source of investment in the property in Mumbai.  The Ld. CIT(A) admitting these evidences being additional evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and forwarding the same to the AO for his report.

ITA No.1988/Ahd/2025 [Rashmi Roopal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 4 –  The AO submitting a remand report dated 11.08.2020 accepting the source of investment in the immovable property as duly explained after verifying all the documents filed by the assessee.  Rejoinder of the assesee to the remand report dated 5th October, 2023 pointing out that the AO had found the source of investment in the immovable property to be duly explained in his remand report. Copies of the remand report, application filed before the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A alongwith annexures including the bank statement of the husband of the assessee Shri Vijay Kumar for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012, copy of agreement executed on 28.09.2010 of purchase of the immovable property, copy of sanction letter of the housing loan taken from HDFC Ltd. and copy of Income Tax Return of Mr. Vijay Kumar for A.Y. 2013-14, copy of the Rejoinder to the remand report at page nos. 129 to 132 all were filed before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, contended that the AO had examined all the evidences filed before him and found the source of investment in the property to be duly explained there was no reason therefore for the matter to be re- considered by the AO as directed by the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. DR fairly agreed with the above.

7.

We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and also the documents filed before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly demonstrated

ITA No.1988/Ahd/2025 [Rashmi Roopal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 –

before us that the issue of investment in immovable property stood duly examined by the AO during the remand proceedings who had accepted the source of the same to be explained in his remand report dated 11.08.2020. The remand report of the AO also noticed the fact of the property being sold in the subsequent assessment year and the capital gain on the same being disclosed by the husband of the assessee. In the light of the same, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) restoring the issue back to the AO for re- verification is unwarranted and unjustified. The addition made in the hands of the assessee is directed to be deleted.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

This Order pronounced on 24/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 24/04/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →