ANSHUL GUPTA,GURUGRAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 2320/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anshul Gupta, the appellant, who contested the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The appeals were based on common grounds related to additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which were allegedly based on a tax evasion petition (TEP) filed by the appellant's wife. The AO had reopened the assessments for multiple years and made additions under section 144, which were upheld by the CIT(A) without a fair hearing. The ITAT noted the procedural lapses and restored the matter to the AO, allowing the appellant another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712181 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 2905/Mum/2025, ITA No. 2526/Mum/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VASU AGARWAL VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2319/Mum/2025 (AY : 2017-18) ITA No.2320/Mum/2025 (AY : 2016-17) (Hybrid hearing) Anshul Gupta, B-91, First Floor, Ardee City, Sector-52, Gurgoan, Haryana, PIN: 122001. [PAN No. AMRPG7068D] Vs ITO, Ward-42(2)(1) Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 Appellant / assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Vasu Agarwal CA (virtually) Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan Sr. DR Date of institution of appeal 01.04.2025 Date of hearing 16.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against separate orders of ld. CIT(A) dated 03.02.2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18. In both the years the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal, certain facts in both the years are common, thus, with the consent of both the parties, both the appeals were clubbed heard together and are decided by common order. 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal in challenging the additions under section 69A. However, at the time of making submissions, the ld Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the lower authorities made additions without allowing fair and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2319 & 2320/Mum/2025 Anshul Gupta( AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) 2 reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The lower authorities acted on the tax evasion petition (TEP) filed by his wife. The assessing officer reopened the case of assessee for AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17& 2017- 18. The assessment in all years were completed under section 144 by making baseless additions which were upheld by ld CIT(A) without allowing fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The case of AY 2013-14 has been restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 2905/Mum/2025 vide order dated 17.06.2025 and the case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 2526/Mum/2025 has been heard by ‘B’ bench on 14.07.2025. The additions in these two years under consideration are also based on the same allegation in TEP filed by the wife of assessee. The wife of assessee launched various matrimonial dispute on the basis of false allegation. At the relevant financial years, the assessee was residing in Mumbai but later on due to matrimonial dispute with wife the assessee shiftedto Haryana. Hence, notices issued by assessing officer (AO) was not served on the assessee. The assessee may be allowed opportunity to contest the case on merit. The ld AR of the assessee submits that this appeal may also be restored back to AO with the liberty to the assessee to file all relevant submissions. He undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance before lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, the ld Senior departmental representative (Sr DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2319 & 2320/Mum/2025 Anshul Gupta( AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) 3 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that AO completed assessment under section 144/ 147 and made additions of unexplained money and credits. The additions were made on the allegation of TEP. On appeal before ld CIT(A), the assessee filed application for filing additional evidences under Rule 46A. The application of the assessee for admission of additional evidences was rejected on technical reasons. Resultantly, the additions made by AO were also upheld. We find that the additions in the assessment order were made in ex-parte proceedings. We find that while dismissing the application of assessee for admission of additional evidence, the ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that before AO the assessee was ex-parte. Hence, the application for additional evidences was to be considered sympathetically. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee vehemently urged that the assessee will make timely compliance before lower authorities and he may be allowed to contest the case on merit. 5. Considering the submissions of ld AR of the assessee, we find that substantial rights of the assessee are involved in the present appeals. Thus, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest his case on merit. Hence, the matter is restored back to the file of AO. The matter is restored back to the file of AO, keeping in view thelong-drawn process of seeking remand report by ld CIT(A) in the event of filing additional submissions or evidence which may require verification by AO.Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the AO shall allow reasonable opportunity Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2319 & 2320/Mum/2025 Anshul Gupta( AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) 4 to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in timely. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 2. In the result, the appeal of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/07/2025 as per Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules. Sd/- PADMAVATHY S ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:24/07/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "