ANSHUL GUPTA,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds in these appeals.

1. That the learned NFAC did not properly consider the submissions made by the Assessee before them. As the order by the learned AO was passed under Section 144 all the evidences were additional evidences and for which application was also made to consider but were still ignored and addition was confirmed as it is. It is craved that AY 2015-16 Anshul Gupta the matter be referred back to the AO so that all evidences and documents are considered and the conclusion is reached thereupon 2. For that impugned order is a completely non-reasoned order and it does not at all disclose any reasoning as to how and why the Assessee s contention is not convincing and not tenable.

3. INR 40,36,853 has been added back citing as unexplained deposits I the bank account. The credits in the bank account are explainable and thus opportunity is seeked to explain the credits. The NFAC did not consider the complete bank statements submitted in which all credit entries were explanatory.

The addition of INR 2,00,000 was made on the ground that the appellant claimed a loss from the house property of which he is not the owner. The learned NFAC however, laid no stress on the fact that the appellant was a co borrower of the housing loan repaid 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 6,47,040/- for AY 2015-16 on 11.12.2015. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP), the case was reopened and a notice u/s. 148 was issued. As the assessee did not furnish any response to the notices issued, Ld. AO finalised the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 48,83,893/- based on information available in the TEP.

Before us, it has been requested by the Ld. AR that since the additional evidences duly filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) have not been considered, the appeal may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the same. Ld. DR has filed a written submission dated 11.07.2025 objecting to the above said proposition.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. After careful consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for a de-novo decision after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to add, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity to present his case before finalising the appeal.

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