APARNA JAGDISH WAGH,MUMBAI vs. ACI, CIRCLE 3, KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2608/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2023AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to appear or provide evidence. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and despite multiple notices, she failed to provide requested details to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, additions were made for unexplained cash deposits and long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and whether the additions made were justified based on the available facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 48,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, (Sr
Hearing: 09/01/2023Pronounced: 23/02/2023

Date of hearing 09/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 23/02/2023 ORDER PER: KULDIP SINGH (JM):

The Appellant, Aparna Jagdish Wagh (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee')by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 12/09/2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] qua the assessment order for Assessment Years 2017-18 on the ground interalia that:-

2 ITA 2608/Mum/2022 “On the facts and in law, 1. The Hon. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in deciding the appeal exparte, ignoring the adjournment requests of the appellant to the notices issued, thereby denying the appellant any opportunity to furnish her say and accordingly breaching the salient principles of equity, fairplay and natural justice for which reason the appeal order be quashed/set aside.

2.

The Hon. CIT(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- + Rs.2,50,000/- = Rs. 1,12,50,000/- as long term capital gain arising on sale of residential flats, which additions are factually incorrect as the appellant was not the beneficial owner of 2 flats sold for Rs. 1,10.00.0007-, her name being included in the purchase and sale agreements of the said flats by her husband who was the real owner as a matter of security only and that the transaction of Rs. 2,50,0007- was not for sale of any flat but instead for purchase of a plot of land by the appellant alongwith her sisters and accordingly the said additions were not justified and bear to be deleted.

3.

Without prejudice, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,0007- as long term capital gains arising on sale of 2 flats, thereby- bringing to tax the entire sale consideration of 2 flats, without granting appropriate deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per the provisions of section 48 of the IT Act. 1961 and for this reason the additions not justified and appropriate deduction for indexed cost of acquisition is required to be granted.

4.

The Hon. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 38,12,0007-. as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I.T Act. 1961. on account of alleged cash deposits in bank account, ignoring the fact that the cash deposit of Rs. 38.00.0007-was actually made by the husband of the appellant from his own sources and imbalance deposit of Rs. 12,000/-, the source was fully explainable and accordingly impugned addition was not justified in the hands of the appellant and bears to be deleted.

5.

The appellant craves leave to add. alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal

at any time before the decision of the appeal.”

2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : The assessee derives income from salaries, remuneration from partnership firm and also income from other sources. The assessee’s return of income filed for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.31,99,720/- was subjected to scrutiny. Notice 3 ITA 2608/Mum/2022 under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to which the assessee has duly responded by filing requisite details. Thereafter, two more notices were issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) seeking further details / documents / evidences in support of the return filed, but assessee has failed to file such further details. Consequently, Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition of Rs.38,12,000/- under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act for depositing unexplained cash in the bank during demonetization. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.1,12,50,000/- on account of long term capital gain of the assessee and thereby framed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act.

3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →