M/S DREAM GROUP, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 100/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Dream Group appealing against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which confirmed an addition of Rs.2,29,97,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) due to the non-furnishing of Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the partners during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The ITAT admitted additional evidences concerning the ITRs of the partners and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for a speaking order as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836619 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO/ACIT-2(1), ITA No. 339/RPR/2025, A.Y.2016-17, Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, TAXC No.61 of 2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.B DOSHI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.100/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Dream Group Shop No.34, Ground Floor, Rio Complex, Opportunity. Fruit Market, Lalpur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: AAKFD1607J ........अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 17.12.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The brief fact in this case are that the assessee during the assessment year i.e. A.Y.2014-15, an order was passed on 19.03.2022 wherein addition of Rs.2,29,97,000/- was made by the A.O on account of purchase of the property treating the same as unexplained investment invoking Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. That before the Revenue, the assessee had only submitted purchase deed, payment/investment details for purchase of the property. It was contended that the purchase of the property was made in A.Y.2015-16 and the investment was made by the assessee out of the capital introduced by partners. The assessee had also furnished copy of the capital account, bank statement of the partners for A.Y.2015-16 which was submitted before the A.O as well as before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The A.O made addition mainly for the reason that ITRs of the partners were not filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. That even, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had also confirmed the said addition for the same reasons. Printed from counselvise.com 3 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted even without going in to the merits of the matter that since the case of the assessee had been dismissed by the Revenue authority and the addition was made for non-furnishing of the copy of ITR of the partners, therefore, in the interest of principles of natural justice, the said documents may be admitted by the Tribunal as additional evidences so to be forwarded the same to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for compliance with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, calling for a ground report from the A.O and then the First Appellate Authority shall decide the matter. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of the said additional evidences and the same is extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 4 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 6 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 5. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that in the interest of substantive justice, matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for compliance with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, calling for a ground report from the A.O and at the same time, decide the matter afresh after careful consideration of all the documents on record. 6. Having heard the parties herein, since the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ITR of the partners which were not filed during the assessment proceedings and also during the appellate proceedings, are crucial for determination of the matter and since due to absence of these documents, the additions were confirmed in the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and therefore, he made an application for admission of the same as additional evidences as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. That it is a settled legal proposition that quasi- judicial authority shall have to carefully consider all the documents on record and thereafter, come out with a speaking order as per independent enquiry and independent application of mind. In this case as assailed by the Ld. Counsel, the additions were made due to non-availability of the ITR of the partners during assessment proceedings and similarly, the same were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to same reasons. We further find that similar issue has been dealt by the ITAT, “DB” Bench, Raipur in the case of Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Printed from counselvise.com 7 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 Income Tax Officer/ACIT-2(1), ITA No. 339/RPR/2025, A.Y.2016-17, dated 05.02.2026, wherein after admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee, the matter was remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observing as follows: “12. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, TAXC No.61 of 2025, order dated 07.04.2025 has held that the ITAT has committed grave legal error in rejecting the application without considering the fact as to whether the documents filed by the assessee are required for just and proper disposal of the appeal in light of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. In the said referred judgment, additional evidences were filed for admission before the Tribunal whereas, in the case of the assesse additional evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which he had rejected. 13. We have also gone through the reasons recorded in the petition filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as to why these evidences have been filed as additional evidences for the first time before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and we do not find any malafide conduct on the part of the assessee. At the same time, the Ld. CIT-DR has not brought on record any evidence/document opposing the plea of the assessee and rather, fairly conceded that in the greater interest of justice, the matter needs to be revisited by the first appellate authority considering all these additional evidences filed on record in compliance to Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 14. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, considering the documents on record and as per directives of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that firstly, any quasi-judicial authority shall have to consider all the documents on record before arriving at a conclusion so that there is clear reasoning in the order itself which reveals that the said authority has arrived at a such conclusion. Secondly, Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 shall be complied with so that ground report can be obtained from the A.O regarding all those additional evidences which were filed by the assessee. Thirdly, no prejudice is caused to the revenue if the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for complying with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 regarding the said additional evidences. In view thereof, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remand the Printed from counselvise.com 8 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 matter back to his file while admitting the additional evidences in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 and having admitted the said additional evidences, we direct the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the matter denovo while complying with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall in compliance to Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 call for a remand report from the A.O and pass a speaking order considering all the additional evidences /documents filed by the assessee on record in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.339/RPR/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes.” 7. Following the aforesaid decision (supra), even without going into the merits of the matter, maintaining the statesquo and on similar terms, we admit the additional evidences filed through the application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 by the assessee and remand these additional evidences to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to comply with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act while complying with principles of natural justice. The assessee shall comply with the hearing notices from the office of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and represent the matter on merits. 8. As per the above terms grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 9 M/s. Dream Group Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 100/RPR/2025 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 11th February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "