ATUL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,VASHI NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 25.03.2019 without furnishing a copy of the reasons recorded within the statutory period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order bad in law.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under section 148 without establishing or recording any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment as required under section 147 of the Act: thereby rendering the notice issued under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto is bad in law.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer who relied upon certain reports of the DCIT, Kolkata, without furnishing the underlying documentary evidence, including the DCIT reports, ledger copies of alleged companies from whom assessee is purported to have received Rs. 80,00,000, search and seizure orders, and statements recorded, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in placing the burden upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of the alleged amount, when the assessee does not have knowledge of receipt of any such amount. The authorities failed to appreciate that the onus to prove the nature and source of Income under the Act can arise only when the assessee is shown to have actually received the amount, and in the absence of any such evidence, the requirement to explain the nature and source is not sustainable in law.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 80,00,000 u/s 69A of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of unexplained income on notional basis u/s 69A, by just stating it generally that the assessee received amount of Rs. 80,00,000 from 4 parties in the order and without clearly confirming the names of the parties from whom the said amounts were received.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 on 18.11.2019. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 20.03.2020. Thus, there was a delay of 93 days in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission and reasons for non-appearance before assessing officer (AO). On the submission of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) obtained the remand report. The assessee explained that due to change of address notice issued by AO either under section 148 or other notice were not served. The assessee received phone call from AO about passing assessment order. The assessee, thereafter obtained copy of assessment order on 20.02.2020 and filed first appeal. On receipt of assessment order, the assessee came to know that the AO made addition of Rs. 80.00 lacs by taking view that the assessee received funds from Kolkata Based companies. Thus, from the date of receipt of the order, there was no delay. The ld. CIT(A) despite recoding such facts not condoned the delay. The ld CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal on merit by taking view that no cogent evidence was filed. The copy of remand report furnished by AO is also placed on record. The assessee is ready and willing to substantiate the transaction of fund received from various companies. The assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to explain the facts before lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee has not made any compliance before AO. Again, the ld. CIT(A) has not furnished required details. Thus, the assessee has not substantiated the transaction of receipt of funds of Rs. 80.00 lacs. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that case of assessee was reopened under section 147. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 25.03.2019. The assessment was completed under section 144 on 18.11.2019. The AO while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 80.00 lacs by taking view that assessee has received fund from four parties belonging to Praveen Kumar Agarwal. We find that ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by taking view that assessee has not explained the delay in filing appeal. We find that before ld CIT(A), the assessee explained that that due to change of address notice issued by AO either under section 148 or other notice were not served. The assessee received phone call from AO about passing assessment order. The assessee obtained copy of assessment order on 20.02.2020 and filed first appeal before ld CIT(A). We find that the ld CIT(A) has not verified facts about the date of receipt of assessment order from the record of AO. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the submissions of ld AR of the assessee that from the date of receipt of assessment order, the appeal was filed in time. Hence, the order of ld CIT(A) is set aside to the extent of not condoning delay. 5. We further find that the lower authorities have passed order for the want of evidence; therefore, issue is restored back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to pass the assessment order afresh. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance and to file all evidence to substantiate his claim. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in open court on 06/08/2026 Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER