LALITA DEVI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), RANCHI

Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sandipan Khan, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that in the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised two issues being the sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.34,43,300/- and the second issue is in regard to purchase of

It was the submission that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed an affidavit specifically saying that the assessee has only purchased the land worth of Rs.32,35,000/- during the impugned assessment year and that the assessee has not sold any immovable property during the impugned assessment year. Copy of the affidavit reads as follows:

It was the further submission that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the Sub-Registrar, Rural Area, Ranchi and he had also responded to the same specifically mentioning that the documents registered in the name of Smt. Lalita Devi is only one purchase document and there is no other documents in the name of the assessee. Said reply of the Sub-Registrar, Rural Area, Ranchi alongwith English translation reads as follows:

It was the submission that the source of the purchase of the property was also informed to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 16.12.2024, which reads as follows:

It was the submission that the assessee has not purchased or sold any other immovable property other than the one what has been claimed to be purchased.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee has not provided any of the details before the AO as well as before the ld CIT(A). It was the further submission that the addition made by the AO is valid and should be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that all the requisite evidences were made available to the Assessing Officer. Except such details which were available with the Assessing Officer, no evidence has been brought on record by the AO to show that the assessee has sold any property for which short term capital gain is liable to be levied and on which the Assessing Officer has levied. This is clearly a case of violation of natural justice. However, so as to give the Assessing Officer another opportunity to make the proper assessment, the issues in this appeal are restored P a g e 11 | 12 to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The Assessing Officer shall provide the assessee with all such documents which are available with him on which he proposes to make the addition against the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall not demand the assessee to prove the negative which the assessee has not done. With these directions, the issues are restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.