GIRISH KUMAR KONTHOUJAM,MANIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE (SHL-C-(9)(1)), IMPHAL
Facts
The assessee did not file a return for AY 2017-18. A Suspicious Transaction Report indicated the purchase of an immovable property for Rs. 1,02,50,000/- in FY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 1,02,50,000/- under section 69 as unexplained investment.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made the addition based solely on information from the Insight portal without proper verification. The assessee's failure to submit documentary evidence led to the dismissal of their appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer is justified without proper verification of the source of investment, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce documents.
Sections Cited
250, 1961, 148, 147, 144, 144B, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.231/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Girish Kumar Konthoujam...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ningthoukhong Bazar, Ward No.2 Bishnupur, Sub-Division Bishnupur Dist-795126.. [PAN: EJCPK0452B] vs. ACIT, Circle (Shl-C-(9)(1)), Imphal .……………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Bhupender Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 27, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 28, 2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed any return for AY 2017-18. As per a 'Suspicious Transaction Report' (STR) information received in Insight portal under the category High Risk CRIU/VRU it revealed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee made purchase of immovable property worth Rs.1,02,50,000/- during the FY 2016-17 at Bangalore. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition u/s 69 of the Act of Rs.1,02,50,000/- as unexplained investment.
Girish Kumar Konthoujam 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-submission of relevant documents to prove the case.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 144 without considering any verification from mother of the assessee who financed for purchasing of the property at Bangalore during the year under consideration rather only based on the information received in Insight portal. He further submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to failure to produce some documents to substantiate the case. The Ld. AR therefore prayed for one fresh opportunity to be given to produce relevant details/documents to prove his case. 5. The Ld. DR did not make any objection to the above proposal of the ld. AR. 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer made the above addition only on the basis of information received in Insight portal and passed his order u/s 144 without properly examining the source of the investment made by the assessee to purchase the said flat during the year under consideration. We also find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to submit certain documentary evidences resulting into the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. Under the circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the documentary evidences/details. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by producing supporting documents/details to substantiate the claim of the assessee.
Girish Kumar Konthoujam 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 28th January, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.01.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
