Ravinder Kaur Bhasin Vs ACIT/NFAC (ITAT Delhi)
Assessee appealed against the NFAC order dated 30.12.2024 confirming an addition of ₹61,00,000 u/s 69 as unexplained investment towards property purchase. The assessment had been reopened u/s 147 on information that Assessee purchased an immovable property of the said value but failed to file a return or respond to notices. AO, finding no compliance, made the addition & completed the assessment u/s 144/147.
Before Tribunal, Assessee contended that both AO & CIT(A) ignored documentary evidence showing that the investment was financed through loans from identified persons & companies whose ITRs & bank accounts established their identity, creditworthiness & genuineness. An application was filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences — confirmations from Charanjit Singh Bhasin, Parupkar Chadha, & Gujrat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., along with documents evidencing conversion of loan to equity.
Tribunal found merit in the plea that such evidence was essential & that the lower authorities had failed to properly consider the materials already on record. Observing that CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without adequate opportunity, ITAT admitted the additional evidences & remitted the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity to Assessee.
