Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order confirming an addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- as unexplained investment. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory details and explanations regarding the source of this investment to both the Assessing Officer and the NFAC.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to furnish necessary details and evidence. However, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the addition for unexplained investment was justified, considering the assessee's failure to provide evidence.
Sections Cited
69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.
1. The order passed by lower authorities in bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. The reopening of assessment is without any tangible material, and it is merely for verification purpose without any corroborating evidence and accordingly, the same is required to be quashed. Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2–
3. The reopening of assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible in law.
4. Ld. NFAC erred in law facts in and on confirming addition of Rs.1,11,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act by treating same as unexplained investment. Rs. 91,49,840/-
5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in not admitting additional evidence ignoring bona fide of the appellant. Ld. NFAC ought to have admitted the same under rule 46A and ought to have adjudicated appeal on merits.
3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications and explanations to substantiate the source of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. However, assessee failed to furnish the substantial details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find that the assessee remained non compliant and failed to submit any details or supporting evidence in respect of unexplained investment even before the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that give an opportunity to produce necessary evidences before the revenue authorities. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting the assessment de novo. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidences, and bank details before the Revenue authorities and to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournments Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3–
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.