MR. PATHAN MOJIAMKHAN OSMANKHAN(LEGAL HEIR: MRS. SIDDIKHA M PATHAN),LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, LATUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP:
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated
27-10-2022 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre
(NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also
called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.
This appeal is time barred by about 316 days. The assessee has
filed an affidavit stating the reasons which led to the late filing. I am
satisfied with the reasons so stated. Therefore, the delay is condoned
and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.
2 ITA No. 1189/PUN/2023 Siddikha M. Pathan
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of
addition of Rs.28,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.69
of the Act.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of
assessment proceedings in the case of Mr. Girish Rajkumar Rachatte,
Latur for the assessment year under consideration, it transpired that he
along with three other persons, including the assessee, had purchased
an immovable property situated at Survey No.17, Mauje Kanheri,
Taluka Latur admeasuring 12 Acres & 60 Guntas for a total
consideration of Rs.1.00 crore, in which all the four persons had equal
share. The assessee’s share in the investment towards the purchase of
property inclusive of stamp duty and registration fees etc. came to
Rs.28,25,000/-. The assessee did not furnish any return of income
u/s.139 of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s.148 and required the
assessee to substantiate the evidence of source of investment made.
The assessee remained absent, which led to the passing of the ex parte
order u/s.144 making addition of Rs.28,25,000/- towards unexplained
investment. During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee tried
to substantiate the source of Rs.28,25,000/- by claiming that a sum of
Rs.8,31,000/- was received from Abdul Razzak Mojamkhan Pathan
(Elder son); Rs.5,61,000/- from Shoaib Mojamkhan Pathan (Younger
3 ITA No. 1189/PUN/2023 Siddikha M. Pathan
son); Rs.13,00,000/- from Tharav Patra (Advance on 02-11-2010) and
Rs.1,33,000/- out of own funds. The assessee submitted partial
evidence in support of the transactions. The ld. CIT(A) called for a
remand report from the AO, who did not concur with the assessee’s
submission on all the above four sources of investment. The ld.
CIT(A) went with the AO’s information and confirmed the addition.
Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the
Tribunal.
I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant
material on record. Admittedly, the assessee submitted partial
evidence of sources of the investment, claimed to have obtained from
his two sons and the amount received as per Tharav Patra along with
cash available. The AO pointed out certain inconsistencies in the
dates. The assessee has filed the paper book running into 54 pages.
The first 24 pages were before the AO/CIT(A) and from pages 25
onwards till 54 page are the additional evidence which include bank
statements of two bank accounts. It is thus seen that the assessment
order was passed ex parte u/s.144 and the assessee could not properly
substantiate the genuineness of the source of investment fully during
the remand proceedings as well. Further, the assessee has filed certain
additional evidence before the Tribunal in support of the genuineness
4 ITA No. 1189/PUN/2023 Siddikha M. Pathan
of the source of investment. Considering the totality of facts and
circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would
be in the fitness of the things if the impugned order is set aside and the
matter is restored to the file of the AO. I order accordingly and direct
him to frame the assessment afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will
be at liberty to lead evidence in support of his explanation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th December, 2023.
Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 11th December, 2023 Satish आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. The CIT concerned िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 4. SMC, Pune / DR, ITAT, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file 5.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
5 ITA No. 1189/PUN/2023 Siddikha M. Pathan
Date 1. Draft dictated on 08-12-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 11-12-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
