Abdul Gafar Abdul Karim Nadiadwala Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai ITAT admitted additional evidence under Rule 29 and restored the matter to the AO where substantial additions were made due to lack of earlier explanation, caused by the death of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted:
- Additions of ₹7.79 crore u/s 69A (bank credits) and ₹57.90 lakh (capital gains) were made for want of evidence
- The legal heir explained inability to produce records earlier due to lack of knowledge and late discovery of transactions
- Fresh documentary evidence (loan confirmations, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, etc.) was now produced
The ITAT held:
- The case involved genuine hardship and sufficient cause
- Tribunal has wide powers to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice
Accordingly, the Tribunal:
- Admitted additional evidence
- Set aside the additions for fresh verification
- Restored the matter to AO for de novo examination with proper opportunity
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing that substantial justice prevails over procedural lapses, especially in exceptional circumstances like death of assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi[for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 19.08.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 29.05.2023.
