Anshul Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench has partly allowed an appeal filed by Anshul Gupta, the assessee, directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to re-adjudicate a case involving an alleged unexplained investment of 4 kg of gold. The ITAT’s decision, pronounced on June 17, 2025, emphasizes the importance of properly considering additional evidence, especially when an assessment is made ex-parte.
The case, Anshul Gupta Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai), pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The core of the dispute revolves around an addition of Rs. 1,18,44,000/- to the assessee’s income, made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This addition was based on the allegation that the assessee had invested in 4 kg of gold, the source of which remained unexplained. The assessee, however, vehemently denied this, claiming the allegation was “frivolous and purely baseless,” stemming from a “frivolous TEP filed by the ex-wife just to harass the appellant.”
Background of the Case
The AO had passed an ex-parte order on May 18, 2023, due to the assessee’s inability to prove the source of the alleged gold investment. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee also submitted an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, seeking to introduce additional evidence. Rule 46A allows an appellant to produce additional evidence before the CIT(A) under specific circumstances, typically when the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evidence before the AO.
