SMT. ANAMIKA VIKAS NAHAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

आदेश / O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2011-12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax-(Appeals), Ajmer, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’],

ITA No.286/Jodh/2019 Smt. Anamika Vikas Nahar Assessment Year: 2011-12 Appeal No.373/2018-19 dated 10/06/2019 on following effective grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity & notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.4,27,500/- in respect of undisclosed investment. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) grossly erred in arbitrary ignoring the valid documentary evidence in support of claim made by the assessee which clearly established the transaction made by the assessee is genuine. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,27,500/- only on the basis of third party statement as without providing the opportunity for cross verification. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding various findings recorded by the Ld.AO in the assessment order based on surmises, assumption and presumptions as such no adverse material evidence found in respect of documents available on record.

As evident, the assessee is aggrieved by the addition of undisclosed investment for Rs.4.27 Lacs. The assessee has also contested the validity of reassessment proceedings. 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including written submissions and documents placed in the paper book. The judicial precedents as relied upon during the course of hearing have duly been deliberated upon. Our adjudication to the subject matter would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 3.1 An assessment was framed against the assessee u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 11/12/2018 wherein the assessee was saddled with impugned addition of Rs.4.27 Lacs. The original return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1).

3 ITA No.286/Jodh/2019 Smt. Anamika Vikas Nahar Assessment Year: 2011-12 3.2 The reassessment proceedings were triggered pursuant to search operations u/s 132 on Rajesh Life-space Group of Companies on 10/03/2016. During search action, the statement of key persons of the group were recorded u/s 132(4) wherein admission was made that the group accepted cash component on sale of flats. The assessee was stated to be purchaser of one such flat and search findings indicated that the assessee made cash payment of Rs.8.55 Lacs as on-money while booking a flat in Raj Legacy-II project. Accordingly, the assessee’s case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was show-caused as to why the aforesaid on-money was not to be added to the income of the assessee. 3.3 However, the assessee denied having made any such cash payment and submitted that agreement value of Rs.72.20 Lacs was paid through account payee cheques from home loan taken from SBI. It was also pointed out that the assessee was co-owner in equal share with her husband. However, going by the search findings, Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.4.27 Lacs on account of undisclosed investment on account of assessee’s ½ share. The action of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is under challenge before us. 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it is noticeable that the whole basis of making the additions in the hands of assessee is search findings. There is no corroborative material on record to substantiate the fact that the assessee, in fact, paid any on-money against the purchase

4 ITA No.286/Jodh/2019 Smt. Anamika Vikas Nahar Assessment Year: 2011-12 of flat. The assessee all along maintained that the agreement value was paid through account payee cheques and no money was paid over and above the same. However, no evidence has been brought on record by Ld. AO to disprove the same and establish that the assessee actually made any cash payment. In our opinion, the primary onus was on revenue to contradict the stand of assessee by bringing on record adverse material. The failure to do so would make the additions unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, we do not find sufficient material on record to sustain the impugned additions. The same stand deleted and the grounds thus raised stand allowed. 5. The assessee has also challenged the validity of assessment proceedings. However, there is nothing on record which would indicate that the proceedings were vitiated, in any manner. The Ld. AO was clinched with specific information which indicated possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more was required at that stage to reopen the assessment proceedings particularly when the original return was processed u/s 143(1). The legal ground stand dismissed. 6. The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. SSd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member

मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 21/12/2020 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese

ITA No.286/Jodh/2019 Smt. Anamika Vikas Nahar Assessment Year: 2011-12 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, जोधपुर / ITAT, Jodhpur.