SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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.

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.

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) :: 3 ::

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.

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:

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).

evidence filed under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules.

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) :: 7 ::

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) :: 8 :: 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).

purposes. Order pronounced on the 17th day of February 2026, in

Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) �या�यक सद(य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद(य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Dated: 17Th February, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: