PRATIBHA ARVIND SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015–16 arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 04.03.2024.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had purchased immovable properties amounting to Rs.70,00,000/- during the relevant previous year. The assessee, however, had not filed the return of Pratibha Arvind Shah income for the year under consideration. Based on the information regarding purchase of the said immovable properties, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment.

During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the said notices. In absence of any explanation from the assessee regarding the source of investment in the immovable properties, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte and treated the investment of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.70,00,000/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted certain additional evidences such as copy of purchase deed, proof of payments made towards the purchase of property and evidences showing sale of an old residential property claimed to be the source of investment. However, the learned CIT(A) declined to admit the additional evidences on the ground that the assessee had not filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidence and accordingly confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.