SUBHASH CHANDRA KESHAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

Facts

The assessee's case for AY 2011-12 was reopened under Section 148 due to MNS data indicating an immovable property transaction, and no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment under Section 144 read with 147, making additions for undisclosed salary income, alleged STCG from property sale, and interest income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, rejecting additional evidence submitted without a proper petition under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to submit documentary evidence during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. Considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of medical exigency, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidence, and the AO is to decide the issues on merits in accordance with law.

Key Issues

Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 148; Justification of additions for undisclosed salary, alleged STCG from property sale, and interest income; and the CIT(A)'s rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A.