TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt) dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under section 143(3) the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under: 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals) [CIT-A] erred in law and facts of the case by confirming the addition of Rs. 2,04,97,450/- u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as unexplained investments by the learned Assessing Officer ('the learned AO'). 2. i) The Hon'ble CIT-A erred in law and facts of the case by rejecting additional evidence produced before him in accordance with the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, thus, denying justice as the said evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. The AO made inquiries with regard to the source of investment made by the assessee in immovable property of Rs. 33,70,400/- and Rs. 49,30,500/-,as also the source of investment of Rs. 80.00 lakhs in assessee's SBI bank account and cash deposited in ICICI Bank of the assessee of Rs. 41,96,550/-. Thus, the assessee was asked to furnish explanation with regard to the total investment made by it of Rs. 2,04,97,450/- in immovable property and various bank accounts. No reply was filed by the assessee explaining the same except for a reply filed on email by somebody named 'Sunny' on behalf of the assessee stating that the assessee was out of country till February, 2019 and was 70 years old and unable to check mail and his accountant w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same. 6. As regards investment in the SBI account of Rs. 80 lakhs, the assessee explained the amount to have been transferred from another bank account of the assessee. The source of the amount was explained as received from three persons viz. Bipinchandra S. Patel, Navinbhai Patel and Nishithkumar C. Patel whose confirmations were also filed. 7. As for the cash deposited in ICICI Bank of Rs.41,96,550/-, the assessee explained the same as sale proceeds of jewellery from M.V. Jewellers and copy of the confirmation was also filed. The assessee, he pointed out, accordingly filed additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) to explain the source of investment made during the impugned year. The assessee's submission, he pointed out, were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ignored the same and went on to reject the application of the assessee seeking admission of additional evidences filed. He drew our attention to para 11.4 of the CIT(A)'s order wherein one of the reasons given by the Commissioner for not admitting the additional evidences was that if the assessee had filed evidences to the AO, more particularly regarding the fact of investment in immovable property being made in preceding year, the AO would accordingly have taken pro-active steps in reopening the case of the assessee for those years, which he was barred by law to do so now. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) was grossly unjustified therefore in not admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee, more p....