Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 14,80,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment. The assessee claimed that additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) did not consider it properly.
Held
The Tribunal held that to ensure just and proper decision, the case should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was given an opportunity to present additional evidence and explanations.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in affirming the addition without properly considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 69, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30/07/2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.
In this case, the AO vide assessment order dated 10.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 has made the addition of Rs. 14,80,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner who by specifically holding ‘that during the appellate proceeding the appellant filed a confirmation from Riddhi Siddhi Recyclers as additional evidence, but failed to provide explanation against the contention of the Ld. AO that how any investor can invest in Mrs. Reeta Mahesh Dave off market mode in a company who does not have a sound financial standing. The appellant also did not file the basic documents such as 1. Share application 2. Number of shares allotted and photocopy of the share certificate 3. Copy of bank statement with cheque number and bank, on which the cheque was drawn. In the absence of above basic documents, the genuineness of so called investment could not be established’ ultimately affirmed the aforesaid addition.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner in affirming the addition made by the AO. The Assessee has claimed that the assessee though had filed details and all the relevant documents as well as additional evidence but still the Ld. Commissioner without touching upon the merits of the additional evidence/document, decided the appeal of the Assessee while affirming the addition in a casual manner.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR has submitted that the AO as well as Ld. Commissioner have rightly given concurrent findings that the Assessee have failed to provide the explanation ‘as to how any investor can invest in off market mode in a company who does not have a sound financial standing’ and therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the Ld. Commissioner specifically mentioned the fact that the Assessee has not filed the documents stated above and therefore in the absence of above basic documents, the genuineness of so called investment could not be established. Whereas the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee claimed contrary. At this particular stage, this Court is inclined not to go into the controversy whether the documents were made available by the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner or not, Mrs. Reeta Mahesh Dave however to cut short the litigation and for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by considering additional evidence filed by the Assessee and also by giving a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate her claim by filing relevant documents and explanation “as to why she has invested in a company who does not have a sound financial standing.’ This Court clarify that the onus to establish her case, would be on Assessee only.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant reply/document which would be essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper and just decision of the case.
In the aforesaid terms, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2025.