Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,58,75,000/- as unexplained investment. The Assessee contended that the investment was accounted for and that they were not given a proper opportunity to produce documents.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to submit requisite documents to substantiate the source of investment during assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after the Assessee produces documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the addition on account of unexplained investment is justified without proper opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence and whether the matter should be remanded.
Sections Cited
143(3), 194(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
(A.Y 2016-17) M/s Creative Insolvency Resolution Vs Income Tax Officer Profession Private Limited (formerly Ward 25(2), C. R. Tech Mech Arc Pvt. Ltd.) C/o Building, ITO, IP Kashyap & Co. 114/214, Citi Estate, New Delhi Centre, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh PAN: AADCT85555D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. P. S. Kashyap, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)/’NFAC’ for short), dated 20/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,58,75,000/- on account of unexplained investment. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/12/2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/03/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,58,75,000/- as unexplained investment in properties, ignoring the fact that the investment made in the property are duly accounted for and recorded in books of accounts. The Ld. Counsel further submittedthat the order impugned has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principals of natural justice as no proper opportunity has been provided to produce all the documents. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has produced certain documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and aRemand Report has been called for from the A.O. by the Ld. CIT(A). Based on the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee, which requires no interference.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the record, during the assessment proceedings A.O. called for details of property purchased by the Assessee.However, the Assessee has not submitted the requisite documents. Though the Assessee had paid TDS at 1% as per Section 194(1A) of the Act, Assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of source of investment of Rs. 1,58,75,000/-. Even during the Ld. CIT(A) the Assessee has not produced any document to substantiate the source of investment. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Assessee to produce documentary evidence in support of source of investment and also document for purchase of the properties. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the First Appeal of the Assessee afresh by considering the documents produced if any by the Assessee.
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.