2025 (4) TMI 342 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed foreign asset under Black Money Act - As submitted Assessee is a senior citizen and belongs to middle class family and earned income from donation property and capital gains - Assessee claimed that he was not in possession of relevant details/documents/evidence and therefore failed to produce the same before the authorities below however now by making sincere efforts has procured certain evidences and therefore has filed a application for admission of additional evidences HELD THAT - Admittedly the orders passed by the authorities below are based on non-submission of relevant evidences which the Assessee now may be not completely but in part has filed before us. As it is the mandate of the law that real income has to be taxed and in the instant case the authorities below made and affirmed the addition admittedly in the absence of relevant reply/documents and therefore for the just decision of the case and substantial justice and fair play we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh but subject to reasonable cost of Rs. 21, 000/- as voluntarily offered by the Assessee. Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The ITAT Mumbai, comprising Judicial Member Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, addressed an appeal by the Assessee against an order dated 14.06.2024 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, for the assessment year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 3,62,42,300/- as undisclosed foreign assets under the Black Money Act.The Assessee, represented by Shri Ashish Mehta and Shri Ujjval Gangwal, contended that due to a lack of possession of relevant documents, he could not comply with earlier proceedings but has since procured additional evidence. He requested the admission of this evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and sought a remand to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.The Tribunal, acknowledging the absence of relevant evidence in prior proceedings, decided to remand the case to the Commissioner for a new decision, subject to a cost of Rs. 21,000/- to be paid by the Assessee to the Revenue Department. The Commissioner is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the Assessee to be heard and to consider the new evidence for a just decision. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 23.10.2024.