आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर म(cid:581)।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.100/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Dream Group Shop No.34, Ground Floor, Rio Complex, Opportunity. Fruit Market, Lalpur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.)

PAN: AAKFD1607J ........अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 17.12.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. The brief fact in this case are that the assessee during the assessment year i.e. A.Y.2014-15, an order was passed on 19.03.2022 wherein addition of Rs.2,29,97,000/- was made by the A.O on account of purchase of the property treating the same as unexplained investment invoking Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

3. That before the Revenue, the assessee had only submitted purchase deed, payment/investment details for purchase of the property. It was contended that the purchase of the property was made in A.Y.2015-16 and the investment was made by the assessee out of the capital introduced by partners. The assessee had also furnished copy of the capital account, bank statement of the partners for A.Y.2015-16 which was submitted before the A.O as well as before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The A.O made addition mainly for the reason that ITRs of the partners were not filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. That even, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had also confirmed the said addition for the same reasons.

4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted even without going in to the merits of the matter that since the case of the assessee had been dismissed by the Revenue authority and the addition was made for non-furnishing of the copy of ITR of the partners, therefore, in the interest of principles of natural justice, the said documents may be admitted by the Tribunal as additional evidences so to be forwarded the same to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for compliance with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, calling for a ground report from the A.O and then the First Appellate Authority shall decide the matter. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of the said additional evidences and the same is extracted as follows:

5. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that in the interest of substantive justice, matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for compliance with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, calling for a ground report from the A.O and at the same time, decide the matter afresh after careful consideration of all the documents on record.

6. Having heard the parties herein, since the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ITR of the partners which were not filed during the assessment proceedings and also during the appellate proceedings, are crucial for determination of the matter and since due to absence of these documents, the additions were confirmed in the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and therefore, he made an application for admission of the same as additional evidences as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. That it is a settled legal proposition that quasi- judicial authority shall have to carefully consider all the documents on record and thereafter, come out with a speaking order as per independent enquiry and independent application of mind.