Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income which was processed u/s. 143(1). The case was subsequently reopened u/s. 148 and assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B based on a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP). The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed without considering additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that since additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was not considered, the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for a de-novo decision after considering the additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 148, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] on 24.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
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.
4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by the assessee that the reopening was based on a frivolous TEP arising out of a marital dispute of the assessee with his ex-wife and therefore, the assessee filed an application to admit the additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) without considering these evidences vide order dated 17.05.2023.
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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ANIKESH BANERJEE RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 31.07.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant AY 2015-16 Anshul Gupta 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,