Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shamima Haseenathul, sold shares for Rs. 12,50,00,000 and declared a capital gain of Rs. 7,86,00,000 after claiming deductions. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the company's total share capital was only Rs. 5,00,000 and treated the entire sale proceeds as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, taxing it under Section 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the sale consideration and acquisition cost of the shares. The CIT(A) also did not admit additional evidence due to non-compliance with Rule 46A. However, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence under Rule 29 to ensure substantial justice and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the additional evidence submitted by the assessee is admissible for substantiating the share transaction, and if the addition made by the AO under Section 68 is justified.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE, 54EC, 54F, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 271AAC(1), 29, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 07.10.2025 for AY 2017-18.
The assessee, an individual, filed her income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 27.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.7,86,00,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify deductions and exemptions claimed against capital gains. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee was a shareholder of M/s. Welcome
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) :: 2 ::
Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. She sold her shares in the company on 01.04.2016 for Rs.12,50,00,000/- and reported a capital gain of Rs.7,86,00,000/- after claiming deductions of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s. 54EC and Rs.2,64,00,000/- u/s.54F of the Income-tax Act. She stated that the cost of acquisition of the shares as of 15.10.1987 was Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the AO noted that the company’s total share capital was only Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore asked the assessee to substantiate both the sale consideration of Rs.12.5 crore and the claimed acquisition cost of Rs.20 lakh. As she failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence, the AO treated the entire sale proceeds of Rs.12.5 crore as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act and taxed it u/s. 115BBE.
Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Following findings have been rendered by the CIT(A):
Regarding Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A:-
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the assessee. It is observed that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished certain documents and information which were not produced before the Assessing Officer (AO) during the course of assessment proceedings. Since additional evidences were filed for the first time at the appellate stage, a remand report was called for from the AO vide letter dated 02.11.2023. Subsequent reminders were also issued on 19.12.2024, 04.06.2025, and 09.09.2025. However, no response has been received from the AO till date. The assessee was also requested, vide this office letter dated 09.09.2025, to coordinate with the AO and furnish the necessary clarifications/information in connection with the remand
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) proceedings. Despite this opportunity, there has been no compliance from the assessee. On perusal of the submissions and the material available on record, I find that the assessee has not demonstrated how the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules are satisfied so as to warrant admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. In the absence of compliance with Rule 46A, the additional evidences filed cannot be admitted. Accordingly, the appeal is adjudicated on the basis of material available on record.
Regarding Addition of Rs.12,50,00,000 u/s.68:-
The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.12,50,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. I have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal, and written submissions filed by the assessee. The assessee had filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 27.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,86,00,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the deductions/exemptions claimed from capital gains. During assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee was a shareholder of M/s. Welcome Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. She had sold shares of the said company on 01.04.2016 for Rs.12,50,00,000/- and offered capital gains of Rs.7,86,00,000/- after claiming deductions of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s.54EC and Rs.2,64,00,000/- u/s.54F of the Act. The assessee claimed the cost of acquisition of the shares as on 15.10.1987 at Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the AO noted that the total share capital of the company was only Rs.5,00,000/-. The assessee was therefore required to substantiate the sale consideration of Rs.12.50 crore and the claimed cost of acquisition. As no satisfactory documentary evidence was produced to establish the genuineness of the transaction or justify the valuation, the AO treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.12,50,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act. During appellate proceedings, the assessee attempted to explain that the amount of Rs.12.50 crore credited in her bank account represented sale proceeds of shares and produced certain additional evidences in support. However, as discussed in para 5.1 above, the additional evidences are not admissible in view of non-compliance with Rule 46A. On the basis of material available on record, I find that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon her under Section 68 to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The claim that the credit of Rs.12.50 crore represented sale proceeds of shares remains unsubstantiated by reliable and verifiable evidence.
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) :: 4 ::
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the AO was justified in treating the amount of Rs.12,50,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and taxing the same under Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed the petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal Rules, 1963 (ITAT Rules) as under:
1. I filed my Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 27.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 7,86,00,000/-. It was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the claim of deductions/exemptions from capital gains. It was noticed that 1, being a shareholder of M/s. Welcome Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., had sold shares of the said company on 01.04.2016 for a total consideration of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- and offered long-term capital gain of Rs. 7,86,00,000/- after claiming deductions of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s. 54EC and Rs. 2,64,00,000/- u/s. 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 2. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the total share capital of the company was only Rs. 5,00,000/- whereas I had claimed the cost of acquisition of shares at Rs. 20,00,000/- as on 15.10.1987. The AO treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- as unexplained income u/s. 68, taxed the same u/s. 115BBE, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1).
3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20.12.2019, I preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-10, Chennai, which was later adjudicated by the NFAC. During appellate proceedings, I filed certain additional evidences. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. Since no remand report was received from the AO despite repeated reminders, the additional evidences were not admitted. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- u/s. 68 and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.10.2025.
The assessee now re-submits the following relevant documents in support of the genuineness of the share transaction: 1. Deed of Reconstitution reflecting the purchase of shares dated 10.07.1997. ii. Copy of the ROC Returns filed by the Company. iii. Statement of Computation of net asset value per share. iv. Memorandum and Articles of Association of Welcome Fisheries Pvt Ltd.
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) :: 5 ::
Some of the above documents were not filed before the AO; but were filed before the CIT(A). The evidences are crucial to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the correctness of my claim. It is respectfully submitted that if these evidences are not admitted, substantial justice cannot be rendered in my case.
5. It is submitted that the non-filing of the above documents before the lower authorities was neither wilful nor wanton. It is further submitted that if the above documents are not admitted as evidence, I would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss. It is thus just and necessary that the above documents are admitted as additional evidence and taken on file in this appeal. 6 In these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the above- mentioned documents may be admitted as additional evidence and thus render justice.
4. Before us, the Ld. AR also filed the following paper book: - Sr Date Particulares Page No. No Filed before AO 1 13.08.2018 Notice u/s.143(2) intimating limited 1-4 scrutiny undertaken bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018- 19/1011204883(1) 2 27.11.2017 Income Tax Retum and Statement of 5-7 Total Income of assessee filed 3 17.04.2019 Reply to Notice filed along with proof of 8-15 investment u/s. 54EC and 54F claimed, ITR and Statement of total income. 4 08.11.2019 Reply to Notice filed along with proof of 16-22 investment u/s. 54EC and 54F claimed bank statement and aadhar copy. 5 02.12.2019 Reply filed to Notice issued u/s. 142(1) 23& 24 6 16.12.2019 Show Cause Notice u/s. 143(3) bearing 25& 26 DIN: ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/2019- 20/1022438849(1) 7 19.12.2019 Reply to Show Cause Notice 27-31 8 20.12.2019 Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) bearing 32-38 No. 32-38 ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1022749567(1) Filed before CIT (A) 9 11.03.2021 Written Submissions along with 39-71 10 31.08.2023 documentary evidences filed. 72-103 11 04.10.2023 104&105
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) :: 6 ::
12 14.11.2023 106&107 13 17.12.2024 108&109 14 07.04.2025 110&111 15 - Annual Return in Form MGT - 7 for the 112-125 FY 2016-17 16 - Memorandum and Articles of Association 126-142 of Welcome Fisheries Private limited In above table, from serial No.9 to 16 (Page Nos. 39 to 42) are additional evidence. The same evidence were filed before the Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. DR for the revenue objected to the admission of the additional evidence filed under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the material available on record, and the petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee has placed on record certain documents, namely, the Deed of Reconstitution dated 10.07.1997, copies of ROC return, computation of net asset value
per share, Memorandum and Articles of Association of M/s. Welcome Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., and other related documents. It is an admitted position that some of these documents were bonafide not filed before the Assessing Officer, though certain documents were produced before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A), having called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and not having received the same despite repeated reminders, declined to admit the
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) additional evidence under Rule 46A and proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material already on record.
From the record, it is evident that the Assessing Officer did not furnish the remand report despite several opportunities granted by the ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the Assessing Officer for non-compliance.
Further, we find that the additional evidences now sought to be relied upon by the assessee go to the root of the matter and are crucial for determining the genuineness of the share transaction and the correctness of the addition made u/s.68 of the Income-tax Act.
In the interest of substantial justice and to ensure that the matter is adjudicated on the basis of complete and relevant material, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. Considering the nature of the evidences and in order to afford adequate opportunity to both sides, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall consider the additional evidences admitted by us, obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, if considered necessary, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) 7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition, and all issues are left open for adjudication by the ld.CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 17th day of February 2026, in Chennai.