Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of ₹1,21,00,254/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for the purchase of an immovable property, upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the investment was jointly made with her husband and son over multiple years and challenged the validity of the reassessment notice under Sections 148A(d) and 148/149. The appeal itself was filed with a delay of 253 days due to personal tragedy and digital illiteracy, for which condonation was sought.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's personal tragedies and digital challenges. It admitted the additional evidence regarding joint investment and temporal spread of payments. Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, including de novo verification of investment sources and adjudication of all legal challenges to the reassessment validity and limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 was justified, considering claims of co-ownership and temporal spread of payments; and the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, including jurisdictional issues and limitation under Section 149.
Sections Cited
69, 148, 148A(d), 149, 139(1), 234A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)] for assessment year 2018-2019, raising following grounds:-
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in facts and in law in upholding the addition of ₹1,21,00,254/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax 1 Act, 1961 as unexplained investment, without appreciating that the said amount was jointly
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty invested by the appellant along with her husband and son towards sted by the appellant along with her husband and son towards sted by the appellant along with her husband and son towards purchase of an immovable property. purchase of an immovable property.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred d Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred d Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in facts and in law in sustaining the addition of both in facts and in law in sustaining the addition of both in facts and in law in sustaining the addition of 21,21,00,254/- - under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the same as unexplained investment, without appreciating treating the same as unexplained investment, without appreciating treating the same as unexplained investment, without appreciating that the said amount repr that the said amount represents cumulative payments made over esents cumulative payments made over multiple Assessment Years pursuant to a duly executed Agreement multiple Assessment Years pursuant to a duly executed Agreement multiple Assessment Years pursuant to a duly executed Agreement to Sale dated 21.02.2018 for the 2 purchase of an immovable to Sale dated 21.02.2018 for the 2 purchase of an immovable to Sale dated 21.02.2018 for the 2 purchase of an immovable property. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), property. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), property. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, erroneously aggregated the however, erroneously aggregated the entire investment and brought entire investment and brought it to tax in a single Assessment Year, ignoring the actual year-wise it to tax in a single Assessment Year, ignoring the actual year it to tax in a single Assessment Year, ignoring the actual year flow of payments and the supporting evidences on record. Such flow of payments and the supporting evidences on record. Such flow of payments and the supporting evidences on record. Such action is contrary to the settled principles of law and facts, action is contrary to the settled principles of law and facts, action is contrary to the settled principles of law and facts, rendering the addition untenabl rendering the addition untenable and liable to be deleted in its e and liable to be deleted in its entirety.
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O is justified in law in initiating proceeding under Learned A.O is justified in law in initiating proceeding under Learned A.O is justified in law in initiating proceeding under section section section 148A(d) 148A(d) 148A(d) in in in appellant's appellant's appellant's case case case which which which is is is passed passed passed in in in contravention to first pro contravention to first proviso to sub section 1 of section 149 of the viso to sub section 1 of section 149 of the Act which bars the reopening of assessment for which notice U/S Act which bars the reopening of assessment for which notice U/S Act which bars the reopening of assessment for which notice U/S 148 was Issued? In view of the above, Appellant bonafide submits 148 was Issued? In view of the above, Appellant bonafide submits 148 was Issued? In view of the above, Appellant bonafide submits that the present re that the present re-assessment proceedings is needs to be assessment proceedings is needs to be withdrawn/ dropped being withdrawn/ dropped being time barred in accordance to section time barred in accordance to section 149 of the Act 4. Learned CIT(A) failed to follow the CBDT instruction 4767 dated Learned CIT(A) failed to follow the CBDT instruction 4767 dated Learned CIT(A) failed to follow the CBDT instruction 4767 dated 04-10-1974 with reference to over 1974 with reference to over-pitched assessment to be pitched assessment to be avoided 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to 262,29,015/-, as 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to 262,29,015/ 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to 262,29,015/ computed by the Assessing Officer from the due date of filing return computed by the Assessing Officer from the due date of filing return computed by the Assessing Officer from the due date of filing return under section 139(1) till the date of passing the assessment order. under section 139(1) till the date of passing the assessment under section 139(1) till the date of passing the assessment The appellant submits that the return in the present case was filed The appellant submits that the return in the present case was filed The appellant submits that the return in the present case was filed in response to a 5 notice issued under section 148, and therefore, in response to a 5 notice issued under section 148, and therefore, in response to a 5 notice issued under section 148, and therefore, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Indu as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Indu as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Indu Rohitkumar Pathak vs. ITO (ITA No. 552/Ahd/2022), the levy of Rohitkumar Pathak vs. ITO (ITA No. 552/Ahd/2022), the le Rohitkumar Pathak vs. ITO (ITA No. 552/Ahd/2022), the le interest under section 234A, if any, should be restricted only from interest under section 234A, if any, should be restricted only from interest under section 234A, if any, should be restricted only from the date of issue of notice under section 148 and not from the due the date of issue of notice under section 148 and not from the due the date of issue of notice under section 148 and not from the due
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty date under section 139(1). Accordingly, the interest levied is date under section 139(1). Accordingly, the interest levied is date under section 139(1). Accordingly, the interest levied is excessive, unjustified, and liable to be deleted or excessive, unjustified, and liable to be deleted or suitably reduced. suitably reduced.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on facts by issuing The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on facts by issuing The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on facts by issuing the Show Cause Notice under Section 148 of the Act, despite the the Show Cause Notice under Section 148 of the Act, despite the the Show Cause Notice under Section 148 of the Act, despite the fact that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 28(1)(1) fact that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 28(1)(1) fact that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 28(1)(1) Mumbai, lacks the authority to issue such not Mumbai, lacks the authority to issue such notice. This position is 6 ice. This position is 6 supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Venus Jewel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Venus Jewel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- -tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414, wherein it was held that the Jurisdictional ÃO taxmann.com 414, wherein it was held that the Jurisdictional ÃO taxmann.com 414, wherein it was held that the Jurisdictional ÃO has no power to issue a notice under Se has no power to issue a notice under Section 148. Accordingly, the ction 148. Accordingly, the entire assessment is liable to be quashed. entire assessment is liable to be quashed. Your appellant prays for leave to add, to alter and/or to amend the Your appellant prays for leave to add, to alter and/or to amend the Your appellant prays for leave to add, to alter and/or to amend the above ground before the final hearing of the appeal. above ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” ” The Registry has noted a delay of 253 days 253 days in filing this 2. The Registry has noted a delay of appeal. The Assessee has moved an application for condonation, appeal. The Assessee has moved an application for condonation, appeal. The Assessee has moved an application for condonation, supported by an affidavit detailing a sequence of personal tragedies. supported by an affidavit detailing a sequence of personal tragedies. supported by an affidavit detailing a sequence of personal tragedies. The Assessee, a senior citizen not conversant with digital interfaces, The Assessee, a senior citizen not conversant with digital interfaces, The Assessee, a senior citizen not conversant with digital interfaces, suffered the sudden and untimely demise of her only son during the suffered the sudden and untimely demise of her only suffered the sudden and untimely demise of her only relevant period. The relevant part of the The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as is reproduced as under:
“03. That the applicant is preferring the present appeal against the order That the applicant is preferring the present appeal against the order That the applicant is preferring the present appeal against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income (Appeals), National Fac (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, under Section 25 Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 1961 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
4. The E-mail ID 'bijaychandra204@gmail.com', which belongs to the mail ID 'bijaychandra204@gmail.com', which belongs to the mail ID 'bijaychandra204@gmail.com', which belongs to the husband of the appellant, Mr. Bijaychandra Mahanty, was registered on husband of the appellant, Mr. Bijaychandra Mahanty, was registered husband of the appellant, Mr. Bijaychandra Mahanty, was registered the Income Tax e-filing port -filing portal. The appellant, being not well al. The appellant, being not well-versed with technology, had relied on her husband for handling online tax matters and technology, had relied on her husband for handling online tax technology, had relied on her husband for handling online tax communications.
The appellant humbly submits that she and her husband are aged he appellant humbly submits that she and her husband are aged he appellant humbly submits that she and her husband are aged person and not conversant with digital modes of communication. Her person and not conversant with digital modes of com person and not conversant with digital modes of com
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty husband, is also not tech husband, is also not tech-savvy and could not appreciate the significance savvy and could not appreciate the significance of the email id. As a result, the appellant remained unaware of the order of the email id. As a result, the appellant remained unaware of the order of the email id. As a result, the appellant remained unaware of the order and the timelines for appeal. and the timelines for appeal.
6. Consequently, due to this genuine and unavoidable lack of digital 06. Consequently, due to this genuine and unavoidable lack of 06. Consequently, due to this genuine and unavoidable lack of awareness and understanding, the appellant remained completely awareness and understanding, the appellant remained completely awareness and understanding, the appellant remained completely unaware of the receipt of the appealable order and, crucially, the statutory unaware of the receipt of the appealable order and, crucially, the statutory unaware of the receipt of the appealable order and, crucially, the statutory timelines for filing the appeal. Had we been aware, we would have timelines for filing the appeal. Had we been aware, we would have timelines for filing the appeal. Had we been aware, we would have promptly taken the necessary steps. promptly taken the necessary steps. PERSONAL TRAGEDY LEADING TO EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL ONAL TRAGEDY LEADING TO EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL ONAL TRAGEDY LEADING TO EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL HARDSHIP 07. The appellant's only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty, was undergoing 07. The appellant's only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty, was undergoing 07. The appellant's only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty, was undergoing treatment for a serious medical condition that required continuous care, treatment for a serious medical condition that required continuous care, treatment for a serious medical condition that required continuous care, including frequent hospital visits and periodic including frequent hospital visits and periodic hospitalization. During this hospitalization. During this period, period, period, the the the appellant appellant appellant was was was entirely entirely entirely occupied occupied occupied with with with caregiving caregiving caregiving responsibilities, which placed significant physical, emotional, and mental responsibilities, which placed significant physical, emotional, and mental responsibilities, which placed significant physical, emotional, and mental strain on her. As a result, she was unable to attend to any legal or strain on her. As a result, she was unable to attend to any legal or strain on her. As a result, she was unable to attend to any legal or financial matters.
On 08th March 2025, the appellant suffered a profound personal On 08th March 2025, the appellant suffered a profound personal On 08th March 2025, the appellant suffered a profound personal tragedy with the sudden demise of her only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty, who tragedy with the sudden demise of her only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty, tragedy with the sudden demise of her only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty, collapsed unexpectedly in the washroom and passed away. The incident collapsed unexpectedly in the washroom and passed away. The incident collapsed unexpectedly in the washroom and passed away. The incident was entirely unforeseen and caused an immense emotional and was entirely unforeseen and caused an immense emoti was entirely unforeseen and caused an immense emoti psychological impact on the appellant and her family. psychological impact on the appellant and her family.
Following the untimely death of her son, the appellant and her 09. Following the untimely death of her son, the appellant and her 09. Following the untimely death of her son, the appellant and her husband were in a state of deep emotional distress. They were engaged in husband were in a state of deep emotional distress. They were engaged in husband were in a state of deep emotional distress. They were engaged in performing religious rites and coping with the loss, performing religious rites and coping with the loss, which left the appellant which left the appellant completely incapacitated from undertaking any personal, legal, or financial completely incapacitated from undertaking any personal, legal, or financial completely incapacitated from undertaking any personal, legal, or financial obligations during that period. obligations during that period. 10.In view of the above facts and circumstances, there has been a delay of 10.In view of the above facts and circumstances, there has been a delay of 10.In view of the above facts and circumstances, there has been a delay of days in filing the appeal. The de days in filing the appeal. The delay has occurred solely due to red solely due to unavoidable hardship, emotional trauma, and lack of technical knowledge. It is hardship, emotional trauma, and lack of technical knowledge. It is hardship, emotional trauma, and lack of technical knowledge. It is respectfully submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable respectfully submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable respectfully submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence or willful inaction on the part of the appellant.” to any negligence or willful inaction on the part of the appellant.” to any negligence or willful inaction on the part of the appellant.”
We have heard the rival submission of the parties eard the rival submission of the parties on the issue eard the rival submission of the parties of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is a settled principle It is a settled principle
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 SCC (2) 107) that when "substantial justice" and "technical that when "substantial justice" and "technical that when "substantial justice" and "technical considerations" are pitted against each other, the former must considerations" are pitted against each other, the former must considerations" are pitted against each other, the former must prevail. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal prevail. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal prevail. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause of justice. In view of the construction to advance the cause of justice. In view of the construction to advance the cause of justice. In view of the emotional trauma and the digital divide faced by the Assessee, we emotional trauma and the digital divide faced by the Assessee, we emotional trauma and the digital divide faced by the Assessee, we find the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent. The assessee find the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent. find the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent. was prevented by way of sufficient cause in filing the appeal on was prevented by way of sufficient cause in filing the appeal on was prevented by way of sufficient cause in filing the appeal on time, as there are bonafide reasons for the delay time, as there are bonafide reasons for the delay, , accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. In view of filed its return of income for the year under consideration. In view of filed its return of income for the year under consideration. In view of the information available the information available on the insight portal of the income tax of the income tax department that assessee purchased a immovable property for a department that assessee purchased a immovable property fo department that assessee purchased a immovable property fo value of Rs. 1,14,15,254/ value of Rs. 1,14,15,254/-, the ld Assessing officer following following the due process under amended amended provision of section 148 of the 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ( in short the Act) rt the Act) issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 directing 07.04.2022 directing the assessee to file return of income. In to file return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 18.01.2024 the assessee filed return of income on 18.01.2024 the assessee filed return of income on 18.01.2024 disclosing total income of Rs. 2,95,315/ disclosing total income of Rs. 2,95,315/-. Thereafter the case of . Thereafter the case of sent to National Faceless Assessment( aceless Assessment(NAFC) unit and assess and assessment proceedings were commenced. The assessee was asked to explain proceedings were commenced. The assessee was asked to explain proceedings were commenced. The assessee was asked to explain
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty the source of investment in the property but no details were filed by the source of investment in the property but no details were filed the source of investment in the property but no details were filed the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AO considered the investment made the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AO considered the investment made the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AO considered the investment made by the assessee in property along with stamp duty value ee in property along with stamp duty value ee in property along with stamp duty value aggregating to Rs. 1,21,00,254 aggregating to Rs. 1,21,00,254/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. On further appeal of the Act. On further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition confirmed the addition observing as under: “4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is During the course of appellate proceedings, it is submitted that the submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,14,15,254/ amount of Rs. 1,14,15,254/- had invested in purchase of immovable had invested in purchase of immovable property and the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,85,000/-, there are 3 co- property and the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,85,000/ property and the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,85,000/ owners of the property purchased i.e. Mrs. Bihnupriya Mahanty, Mr. owners of the property purchased i.e. Mrs. Bihnupriya Mahanty, Mr. owners of the property purchased i.e. Mrs. Bihnupriya Mahanty, Mr. Bijaychandra Mahanty (Husband) and M Bijaychandra Mahanty (Husband) and Mr. Tushar Mahanty (Son) during r. Tushar Mahanty (Son) during the A.Y. 2018-19. The total payment regarding the purchase of immovable 19. The total payment regarding the purchase of immovable 19. The total payment regarding the purchase of immovable property made proportionally by 3 coowners. property made proportionally by 3 coowners. 4.3 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts assessment order and the submissions of the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. It is simply held appellant. It is simply held by the appellant that the property was purchased by 3 co-owners viz by the appellant that the property was purchased by 3 co by the appellant that the property was purchased by 3 co appellant, her husband and her son. The appellant has filed a statement appellant, her husband and her son. The appellant has filed a statement appellant, her husband and her son. The appellant has filed a statement showing the payments made to towards purchase of flat. it is seen that the showing the payments made to towards purchase of flat. it is seen that the showing the payments made to towards purchase of flat. it is seen that the appellant had paid Rs. 85,26,000/ ad paid Rs. 85,26,000/- including GST and her husband Sri including GST and her husband Sri Bijaychandra Mahanty has pald Rs. 23,22,200/ Bijaychandra Mahanty has pald Rs. 23,22,200/- incl GST. Her son mr. incl GST. Her son mr. Tushar Mahanty had stated to have been paid of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Tushar Mahanty had stated to have been paid of Rs. 1,80,000/ Tushar Mahanty had stated to have been paid of Rs. 1,80,000/ 4.3.1 It is seen from the computation of income filed along with the return 4.3.1 It is seen from the computation of income filed along with t 4.3.1 It is seen from the computation of income filed along with t of income filed in response to notice under sec. 148 for the A.Y. 2018-19 of income filed in response to notice under sec. 148 for the A.Y. 2018 of income filed in response to notice under sec. 148 for the A.Y. 2018 that the appellant is having income from other sources at Rs. 3,05,123/-. that the appellant is having income from other sources at Rs. 3,05,123/ that the appellant is having income from other sources at Rs. 3,05,123/ Under the circumstances, it is not established how she has mobilized the Under the circumstances, it is not established how she has mobilized the Under the circumstances, it is not established how she has mobilized the payments of Rs. 85,26,000 payments of Rs. 85,26,000/- to purchase an immovable property. Further, to purchase an immovable property. Further, the appellant has not filed any ITR or computation of income in the case of lant has not filed any ITR or computation of income in the case of lant has not filed any ITR or computation of income in the case of Sri Bijaychandra Mahanty and Mr. Tushar Mahanty to establish the Sri Bijaychandra Mahanty and Mr. Tushar Mahanty to establish the Sri Bijaychandra Mahanty and Mr. Tushar Mahanty to establish the creditworthiness of these co creditworthiness of these co-owners. 4.3.2 In the appellate proceed In the appellate proceedings, the burden of proof always lies on the ings, the burden of proof always lies on the appellant to rebut the decision of the Assessing officer with verifiable appellant to rebut the decision of the Assessing officer with verifiable appellant to rebut the decision of the Assessing officer with verifiable documentary evidence. In the instant case the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence. In the instant case the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence. In the instant case the appellant failed to produce the cogent explanation duly supported by corroborative documentary the cogent explanation duly supported by corroborative documenta the cogent explanation duly supported by corroborative documenta evidence and proofs to establish the genuineness of the payments made evidence and proofs to establish the genuineness of the payments made evidence and proofs to establish the genuineness of the payments made by all the 3 coow by all the 3 coowners to purchase the immovable property of Rs. ers to purchase the immovable property of Rs. 1,21,00,254 In view of the above it is held that the AO correctly held that 1,21,00,254 In view of the above it is held that the AO correctly held that 1,21,00,254 In view of the above it is held that the AO correctly held that the assesse failed to discharge the onus ve the assesse failed to discharge the onus vested on sted on her by not filing
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty necessary explanation of source of cash with sufficient documentary necessary explanation of source of cash with sufficient documentary necessary explanation of source of cash with sufficient documentary evidence. Therefore, the additions made by the AQ are confirmed is 69 of evidence. Therefore, the additions made by the AQ are confirmed is 69 of evidence. Therefore, the additions made by the AQ are confirmed is 69 of the Act as the source of which remain unexplained and unsubstantiated. the Act as the source of which remain unexplained and unsubstantiated. the Act as the source of which remain unexplained and unsubstantiated. Ground No. 1 of this appeal is dismissed.” is appeal is dismissed.”
5. Before us learned counsel for the assessee filed Before us learned counsel for the assessee filed Before us learned counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing pages No. 1 to 328 No. 1 to 328. Before us learned counsel for the us learned counsel for the assessee submits that property in dispute assessee submits that property in dispute was purchased by assessee along with her her husband and son and investment has been and investment has been made by all the three family members made by all the three family members, which was spread over past spread over past many years. Ld. Counsel Counsel referred to the paper book pages referred to the paper book pages explaining the year wise payment made to the builder along with explaining the year wise payment made to the builder along with explaining the year wise payment made to the builder along with bank statement of all the three family members bank statement of all the three family members. The Ld. . The Ld. counsel also referred to the legal ground challenging the validity of the re referred to the legal ground challenging the validity of the re- referred to the legal ground challenging the validity of the re assessment but we find that submission assessment but we find that submissions regarding source of regarding source of investment were not filed before not filed before either the Ld. CIT(A) or the either the Ld. CIT(A) or the Assessing officer, therefore all therefore all those documents are in nature of the s are in nature of the additional evidence.
5.1 Having considered the submission of the assessee, we are of Having considered the submission of the assessee, we are of Having considered the submission of the assessee, we are of opinion that documentation of assessee purportedly demonstrates: opinion that documentation of assessee purportedly demonstrates: opinion that documentation of assessee purportedly demonstrates:
Co-ownership: That the property was a joint investment by That the property was a joint investment by three family members. three family members. Temporal Spread: Temporal Spread: That payments were not concentrated in a That payments were not concentrated in a single year but were spread across multiple prior years, single year but were spread across multiple prior years, single year but were spread across multiple prior years, contrary to the AO's "telescoped" addition. contrary to the AO's "telescoped" addition.
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 8 ITA No. 4477/MUM/2025
Banking Banking Channels: Channels: Year-wise wise payment payment schedules schedules corroborated by the bank statements of all three fa corroborated by the bank statements of all three fa corroborated by the bank statements of all three family members.
5.2 These documents were not available to the lower authorities. These documents were not available to the lower authorities. These documents were not available to the lower authorities. Before us the assessee has requested to take those documents on Before us the assessee has requested to take those documents on Before us the assessee has requested to take those documents on record as additional evidence. As above documents go to the very record as additional evidence. As above documents go to the very record as additional evidence. As above documents go to the very root of the matter and are essential for a just root of the matter and are essential for a just decision, we admit decision, we admit them as Additional Evidence Additional Evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules.
5.3 Adhering to the principles of Adhering to the principles of Audi Alteram Partem Audi Alteram Partem, the Revenue must be afforded an opportunity to verify these fresh claims. must be afforded an opportunity to verify these fresh claims. must be afforded an opportunity to verify these fresh claims. Furthermore, the Assessee has raised Furthermore, the Assessee has raised significant jurisdictional significant jurisdictional grounds—including the authority of the JAO to issue notice u/s including the authority of the JAO to issue notice u/s including the authority of the JAO to issue notice u/s 148 and the bar of limitation u/s 149. 148 and the bar of limitation u/s 149.
5.4 In the interest of justice and to ensure a "speaking order" on In the interest of justice and to ensure a "speaking order" on In the interest of justice and to ensure a "speaking order" on both facts and law, we deem it fit to vacate the impugned order and both facts and law, we deem it fit to vacate the impugned or both facts and law, we deem it fit to vacate the impugned or restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. is at liberty to raise any legal ground any legal ground challenging the validity of the the validity of the re-assessment before the before the Ld Assessing officer. The AO is directed to The AO is directed to (i) Conduct a de novo de novo verification of the source of investment based the source of investment based on the additional evidence provided, (ii) Adjudicate upon the legal on the additional evidence provided, (ii) Adjudicate upon the on the additional evidence provided, (ii) Adjudicate upon the challenges regarding the validity of the re regarding the validity of the re-assessment notice and assessment notice and (iii) decide the other issues raised by the assessee in accordance (iii) decide the other issues raised by the assessee in accordance (iii) decide the other issues raised by the assessee in accordance with law.
Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 9 ITA No. 4477/MUM/2025
In the result, appeal of the assessee is appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on pronounced in the open Court on13/0 /03/2026.