AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for A.Y. 2014-15.
The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal:
"1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred in passing a completely non-speaking order, contrary to the mandate in Section 250(6) of the Act.
[Original Ground 9]
2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming findings in assessment and rejecting evidence led before it, without evaluating the same and putting the Assessee to notice in this regard.
[Original Ground 2,4,7,9,10]
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 11,98,09,000/- under Section 69A of the Act.
[Original Ground 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10]"
At the outset, Id. AR has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and had not filed his return for A.Y. 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of information regarding huge cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during the year. The assessee claimed that the consideration received on sale of agricultural land was deposited in the bank account and the same was exempt as the land in question was not a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. However, the assessee did not submit requisite documentary evidences for establish its claim despite being specifically asked to furnish a certificate from the municipal authority regarding distance of the impugned land from local municipal limits. Accordingly, assessment was framed u/s 144 after treating the deposits totaling to Rs.11,98,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Id. CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed by Id. CIT(A) as he did not consider the fresh documents submitted by the assessee in the absence of any request for admission of additional evidence. Further, aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, Id. AR requested that the matter may be restored to the AO for fresh consideration of the additional documentary evidences now available with the assessee. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO for de- novo assessment. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the AO.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.