SUSHMITA GUPTA,DELHI V. ITO, DELHI

ITA 3741/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sushmita Gupta, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, regarding unexplained investments and income discrepancies for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the assessee's income under sections 69A and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing unexplained investments in property and unexplained salary income as per Form 26AS. The CIT(A) partly upheld these additions but rejected additional evidences provided by the assessee due to procedural non-compliance under Rule 46A. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to admit the additional evidences and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471591 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ MANGLA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; FORM 26AS
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3741/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sushmita Gupta, vs. Income Tax Officer, D-63, Retreat Apartment, Delhi. 20, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, East Delhi, Silvassa, Delhi - 110 092 (PAN : AETPG0257N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of Order : 19.03.2025 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘Ld. CIT (A)’) dated 24.06.2024 for AY 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are, in this case, assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 05.12.2019 by making the addition u/s. 69A of Rs.93,10,000/- 2 ITA No.3741/DEL/2024 for unexplained investment in property for which no details has been provided and further, no details have been provided by the assessee for salary appearing in Form 26AS amounting to Rs.17,01,733/- and the same was treated as unexplained investment and accordingly made addition. 3. Against the aforesaid action of the AO, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee filed additional evidences which were not allowed by the ld. CIT (A) by observing that assessee has furnished the additional evidences without any accompanying petition making out a case under any of the four limbs of the Rule 46A (1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1961. Accordingly, vide his impugned order dated 24.06.2024, ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by affirming the addition of Rs.93,10,000/- made u/s 69A and the addition of Rs.17,01,733/- was directed to be examined by the AO vis-a-vis Form 26AS. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the assessment order passed by AO as well as appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and are passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore, liable to be annulled. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting documents furnished by the assessee holding that no petition u/R 46 is furnished by her. 3 ITA No.3741/DEL/2024 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in upholding and not annulling the reassessment order passed by the AO because of initiating reassessment proceedings on incorrect apprehension of the facts of the case of assessee. 4. That the addition of Rs. 93,10,000/- made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act and affirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and not tenable under the law as no unexplained investment is made by the assessee for purchase of immovable property. 5. That the addition of Rs. 17,01,733/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee claiming to have been made relying on Form 26AS is erroneous and illegal as no such amount is appearing in Form 26AS.” 5. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that additional evidences filed by the assessee has been rejected by the ld. CIT(A), which goes to the root of the matter. Hence, he requested that the additional evidences mentioned at para 5.5 of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) viz. copy of sale deed, bank account statements, home loan documents etc. may be admitted and matter may be restored back to the AO to consider the same and decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Ld. DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that ld. CITA (A) appreciated the rejection of the additional evidences by noting that the assessee has furnished the additional agricultural land evidences without any accompanying petition making out a case under any of the four limbs of the Rule 46A (1) and being constrained by the procedural rules and law laid out, hence he had not considered the additional evidences. 4 ITA No.3741/DEL/2024 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that it is the contention of the assessee that additional evidences mentioned at para 5.5 of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) viz. copy of sale deed, bank account statements, home loan documents etc. were not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences by noting that as there is no accompanying petition of the assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules. In our considered opinion and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to admit the said additional evidences under Rule 46A. Since the issue was not verified by any authority, we deem it fit to remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer and direct the AO to consider the same and decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of March, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19.03.2025 TS 5 ITA No.3741/DEL/2024 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, New Delhi. 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "