INCOME TAX OFFICER - 41(4)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHAREEKA PRASANNA SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 9039/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2026Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has co-terminus powers and can examine additional evidence. The evidence produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) adequately explained the source of investment, and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The Revenue's contention regarding violation of Rule 46A was rejected.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 83,77,500/- to the assessee's income, treating it as unexplained investment in two jointly purchased properties. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation and supporting documents during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided additional evidence, including loan documents and sale proceeds of her husband's property.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting and relying on additional evidence filed at the appellate stage without giving AO an opportunity to verify, and in deleting the addition related to unexplained investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 148A,Section 148,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Shareeka Shetty (Assessee herself)
For Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari, Ld. DR, Ms. Shareeka Shetty (Assessee herself)
Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 09.03.2026

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 27.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017–18, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 147

2 Shareeka Prasanna Shetty read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]dated 11.02.2025. 2. The brief facts of the case are such that the assessee is an individual and resident. Information was received by the Assessing Officer through the Insight portal under the Ris

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →