SHALINI NALIN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1. For this year, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.75,00,000/- considering unsecured loan as unexplained Income u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the ld. AO by confirming the additions of Rs. 75,00,000/- without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the addition be deleted.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

“63. We shall first deal with the issue of admissibility of additional evidence. We have given due consideration to the oral arguments and written submission made by the Ld. DR and the contention of the Assessee for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence filed by the Assessee are letters exchanged between Assessee and family members with Sumitradevi Chaudhary wherein earlier MOU entered between them dated 07.12.2021 is referred in respect of sale of land and advance amount paid aggregating to Rs.6 cr. to family members including Assessee. The letters exchanged are dated 06.01.2025 by Assessee and family members to Sumitradevi Chaudhary in respect of balance consideration of Rs.44 cr. to be paid and which was responded by Sumitradevi Chaudhary vide letter dated 10.01.2025 showing her inability to pay the same and requesting to not forfeit the advance amount paid of Rs.6 cr. Further letter from Assessee and family members dated 20.01.2025 to Sumitradevi Chaudhary for terminating the MOU entered dated 07.12.2021 and refund of advance amount in span of about 7 months and first amount paid of Rs.5 lakhs by Assessee and subsequent payments aggregating to Rs.70 lakhs highlighted by filing bank statement separately. The contention of the Assessee is that all these events have taken place after the orders were passed by lower authorities and thus, these evidences could not be filed earlier. However, the copy of MOU dated 07.12.2021 and explanation of the Assessee that the amount was received as advance for sale of land was furnished before the lower authorities duly supported by Affidavit of Sumitradevi Chaudhary and thus, it cannot be said that these additional evidences are after thought or does not have any bearing on the issue at hand.

of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

5. In view of the above, this grounds of appeal of the Assessee is also restored to the file of the AO with the same direction to the AO as given in the appeal in case of Shri Jagdishkumar Gupta. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 03/07/2025 KRK, Sr. PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//