Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2015-16. Based on financial transactions, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148A and subsequently under Section 148. The AO made several additions to the assessee's income, including for unexplained cash credit, unexplained money, and denial of set-off for short-term capital loss.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, deeming it crucial for deciding the additions. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for a de-novo assessment after considering the new evidence and submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the additional evidence produced by the assessee is crucial for deciding the additions, and if so, whether the case should be remanded for de-novo assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 148A, 148, 143(2), 68, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH,
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Year: 2015-2016 Devraj Vishwasrao ITO, Ward-3, Satara Jadhav, R. No. 06, S. No. 24, Vs. Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune-411021 Maharashtra PAN-AEBPJ6968F अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by: Dr. Prayag Jha Department by: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing: 23-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08-09-2025 आदीश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 11.09.2024 which is arising out of Order passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 14.03.2023.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the arguments and submissions made by the assessee and dismissing all the Grounds taken in appeal.
2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer had not served on the assessee the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act and therefore, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction.
3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had sold shares through stock exchange and the amount of Rs.80,11,889/- was received on account of sale proceeds and it was not unexplained credit liable to tax under section 68 of the IT Act.
4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO R had made addition of Rs.36,35,415/- being cost of equity share purchased through his bank account and the amount was not unexplained money liable to tax under section 69A of the IT Act.
5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO F had made addition of Rs.74,44,000/- on account of sale consideration on sale of agricultural land and it was not unexplained credit within the meaning of section 68 of the IT Act. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amount of Rs.36,35,000/- was received as consideration on sale of agricultural land and was exempt from Income Tax. 7. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not directing the Ld AO to allow set off for Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.4,55,452/-. 8. The above grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
9. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings.
10. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. Based on the information available with the Department about the assessee having entered into various financial transactions totaling to Rs. 1,93,25,293/-, Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. After obtaining necessary approval and on following the proper procedure laid down u/s 148A valid statutory notices u/s 148 of the Act duly served upon the assessee.
In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee did not make proper compliance on the initial notice issued by the Ld. AO and only furnished few information about the purchases and sale of the Equity Shares. Ld. AO after considering the partial details concluded the assessment proceedings after making various additions amounting to Rs. 2,31,81,756/- to the interest income offered by the assessee in the income tax return at Rs. 8,41,122/- and assessed the income at Rs. 2,40,22,878/-
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the additions made by the AO raising various grounds of appeal
. Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submissions filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) placed in Paper Book at page No. 353-363 and also referring to various documents placed in the paper book containing 353 including the documents enclosed at Paper Book page No. 288-350 in the nature of additional evidence, he claimed that the additional evidence go to the root of the issue involved in this appeal and very relevant for deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that considering the nature of additions and the additional evidences, the issue raised in the instant appeal may please be restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).
6. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of the Ld. CIT(A).
7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that during the course of assessment proceedings Ld. AO has made various additions including the addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 80,11,889/- and Rs. 74,44,000/- addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 36,35,415/- and also the addition for denying the short term capital loss at Rs. 4,55,452/- and addition for not providing details of unexplained income at Rs. 36,35,000/-. We further notice that though the assessee filed few details before Ld. CIT(A) but they were not sufficient to satisfy Ld. CIT(A). Before us the assessee has furnished certain new additional evidence which reads as under:-
Sr. Name of Document Pages From To No. 7 Confirmation Letter of Shri Darshan Dagdu Botre 288 296 along with documents supporting his land holding and his Affidavit affirmed on 29.01.2025 and.
8 Confirmation Letter of Shri Ravindra Ramchandra 297 305 Mandekar and Shri Shekhar R. Mandekar along with documents supporting their land holding and Affidavit of Shri Ravindra Ramchandra Mandekar affirmed on 29.01.2025.
9 Confirmation Letter of Shri Shivram Nathu Jori along 306 313 with documents supporting his land holding and his Affidavit affirmed on 29.01.2025.
10 Confirmation Letter of Smt. Suvarna Balu Shelar 314 324 along with documents supporting her land holding and her Affidavit affirmed on 29.01.2025.
11 Confirmation Letter of Shri Bandu Maruti Jori along 325 334 with documents supporting his land holding and his Affidavit affirmed on 29.01.2025.
12 Confirmation Letter of Shri Namdev Damu Kudale 335 337 along with proof of land holding.
13 Confirmation Letter of Smt. Sharada Ankush Pawar 338 340 along with proof of land holding.
14 Confirmation Letter of Shri Vijay Mirkute along with 341 343 proof of land holding.
15 Confirmation Letter of Shri Nathu Sama Bavdhane 344 346 along with proof land holding.
16 Confirmation Letter of Shri Kashinath Kisan 347 350 Balkawade along with proof of land holding.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the above additional evidences has submitted that admission of these additional evidences is very crucial for deciding upon the additions made in the hands of assessee and goes to the root cause of the additions. We notice that in these additional evidences there are certain affidavits given by some persons who have paid cash to the assessee for carrying out certain job work including land clearing and leveling activities on the plots of lands utilized for agricultural purposes. It is claimed that the cash received by the assessee from carrying out the job work activities have been utilized for the cash deposits made in the Bank Accounts.
We therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and considering rule 46A of the income tax rules, hereby admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and further since the additional evidences needs to be examined by the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to restore all the issues to the file of Ld. JAO for De-novo assessment which is to be carried out after considering the submissions as well as details to be furnished by the assessee including the additional evidence placed before this Tribunal. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of October, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER प णी/ Pune; ददिेंंक /Dated: 08th October, 2025. Neeta आदीश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रीधर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1.अपीलेंर्थी / The Appellant. 2.प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3.The Pr. CIT concerned. 4.धवभेंगीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "A" बाच, प णी / DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune. 5.गेंर्ा फेंइल / Guard File. आदीशेंि सेंर / BY ORDER,
Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, प णी /ITAT, Pune.