ANJU LAMBA,DELHI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, E-ASSESSMENT

ITA 7657/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's limited prayer was that the bank statements filed as additional evidence before the CIT(A) were not considered. Considering the facts, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a fresh assessment order ('denovo'). The AO is directed to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and any other relevant documentary evidence furnished by the assessee to explain the remaining source of investment. The AO shall delete the addition to the extent the source of investment is proved after considering the documentary evidence. The assessee will be granted a reasonable opportunity of making submissions. The ratio decidendi is that where additional evidence submitted to the first appellate authority is claimed to be not considered, the matter may be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of such evidence. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anju Lamba, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal challenged an addition of Rs. 35,27,179/- made under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee had jointly purchased an immovable property for Rs. 2,20,00,000/-. She explained the source of her share of funds amounting to Rs. 1,10,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted Rs. 79,12,821/- of the source and added the remaining Rs. 35,27,179/- as unexplained investment. The assessee submitted bank statements of J&K Bank and Axis Bank as additional evidence to the CIT(A) to explain the balance investment source, but these were allegedly not considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,27,179/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider the bank statements of J&K Bank and Axis Bank, submitted as additional evidence, which were intended to explain the source of the remaining investment for the immovable property. The assessee prayed for these additional evidences to be considered. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, relying on the findings of the CIT(A), prayed for the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar. Sr.DR

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 10.07.2026, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ms. Shruti Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee in appeal has assailed addition of Rs.35,27,179/- u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) confirmed by the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →