ANUJ KUMAR MATHUR,SOUTH WEST DELHI vs. ITO INTL TAXATION WARD 2 (2) (1) NEW DELHI, DELHI

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee as well as learned Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal itself can be disposed of so that no decision is required to be taken on the stay application. Thus, with the consent of both the parties, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is an individual. As could be seen from the facts on record, for the impugned assessment year, assessee did not file any return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, based on information available on record, the Assessing Officer noticed that, as per 26AS data, in the year under consideration assessee had receipts of Rs.15,22,678 and had made payment of Rs.3,65,686 through credit card. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee on 06.05.2019 filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.9,02,160 under the head “income from other sources”. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, in response to the queries made in notices issued under Section 142(1) and 132(2) of the Act as well as the questionnaire, no compliance whatsoever was made by assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment by invoking section 144 of the Act. While doing so, he added back an amount of Rs.6,20,520, being the difference between the total receipts as per Form 26AS and the income declared in the return of income, by treating the amount as unexplained credits under Section 69A of the Act. Further, he added back an amount of Rs.3,65,686, being the payment made through credit card, as unexplained cash expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid additions before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful.

Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, assessee is a non-resident individual and works abroad. He submitted, assessee has invested in term deposit with HSBC Bank, India Branch, from which interest income of Rs.9,02,156 was received. He submitted, the bank has also deducted tax at source on such interest income. He submitted, since tax was deducted at source on the interest income and since, the assessee was working abroad, he did not file the return of income and was also unable to check his mail, wherein, Assessing Officer has sent the notice. He submitted, though, the assessee had requested for supplying him with the reason to believe, however, it was provided quite late and the Assessing Officer did not provide reasonable time to furnish the details and reply to the questionnaires.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of proceedings before the departmental authorities assessee neither furnished the details nor offered proper explanation, which compelled the Assessing Officer to make the additions. However, he submitted, if the assessee wants one more opportunity, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, assessee did not file his return of income voluntarily under Section 139(1) of the Act. Based on data available in 26AS, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. It is the allegation of the departmental authorities that neither in course of assessment proceedings nor first appellate proceedings, assessee made proper compliance. It is observed, before the Assessing Officer assessee did not file any details, however, before the first appellate authority the assessee did file certain additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Act, which learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not entertain.

Considering the fact that the additions made are on account of lack of proper reconciliation and also keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the assessee that assessee works abroad on work VISA, hence, did not get proper opportunity and time to comply to the queries, we are inclined to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. However, the burden is entirely on the assessee to furnish the required details to reconcile the difference in the data available with the Assessing Officer. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have disposed of the appeal, Stay Application No. 98/Del/2022 has become infructuous.

In view of the aforesaid, assessee’s appeal in is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Application No.98/Del/2022 is dismissed.