RACHNA ASHOKBHAI DESAI,VALSAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Surat Bench, Surat Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 837/SRT/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Rachna Ashokbhai Desai National Faceless Assessment 703, Megh Rachna Tower, Nr. Vs. Centre, Delhi 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Dreamland Talkies, Tithal Road, Valsad – 396001, Gujarat Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKMPD4446R (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/05/2026 : 02/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), dated 30.06.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 27.03.2022. 2. Solitary grievance of the assessee in the grounds of appeal, mentioned in Form No. 36 are that Ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC erred in law and on facts in making addition on account of disclosed investment in Mutual Fund and Insurance Policies to be deemed income u/s.69 r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 15,90,986/-.

ITA No. 837/SRT/2025 Rachna Ashokbhai Valsad 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press additional legal grounds raised by the assessee, therefore, I dismiss the additional grounds/ legal grounds raised by the assessee, as not pressed. 4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before me is an Individual and had not filed her return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14. As per information received from the Dy. Director of Income (Inv.) Valsad, the assessee had made investment in Mutual Funds and Insurance Policies of Bajaj Alliaz totalling to Rs. 47,59,234/-. Since, the assessee has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration, the source of investment in the mutual fund and insurance policies remained unexplained, hence proceedings under section 147 were initiated and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31-03- 2021, after recording satisfaction and obtaining approval from the competent authority. In response to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.04.2021, declaring total income at 2,04,480/-. The assessee has shown income from business or profession, income from capital gains, income from other sources besides net agricultural income of Rs. 13,03,560/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 25.06.2021. The assessee raised objections on 17.02.2022, regarding the issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 which has been duly disposed of by a speaking order on 22.03.2022. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee from time to time through ITBA portal and served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee furnished complete relevant details/information before the assessing officer. The assessee had replied to the assessing officer that She was married and just now living in Delhi and under medical treatment of pregnancy. At that time there are lockdown everywhere in India as well as in the world, due to COVID-19 pandemic, therefore it was impossible to attend office, but she had

Page 2 of 5

ITA No. 837/SRT/2025 Rachna Ashokbhai Valsad submitted all the supporting evidences, like copy of balance sheet, capital account, statement for investment and copy of 7-12 & 8-A for holding agricultural land, Source of investments like Agriculture income (crops sales bills) etc, by e-mail to the Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Valsad, as on dated 24.03.2020. 5. However, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and held that as per the information available in the system, the notice u/s 148 has been duly been served upon the assessee on 31.03.2021. Hence, the plea taken by the assessee that the same is received after 31.03.2021 carries no force. It was also noticed that the submissions of the assessee are only self-serving without bringing any documentary evidence. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.15,90,986/- in the hands of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assesses carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee has stated that she had received income from agriculture and also the fact that she had received gifts worth Rs. 8,20,000/- on account of engagement and marriage ceremony. The assessment order on page 31 of the assessment order has analyzed that the Returns, showing agriculture income was filed by the assessee. The assessing officer has examined the details of agriculture income, the land holding of the assessee, the gifts received from the relatives and correlated it with the bank statements from pages 3 to 30 of the assessment order. The assessing officer also analyzed the various evidences submitted by the assessee and came to the conclusion that the most important record, copy of khatauni (crop record of the State Gov.) was not produced during the assessment proceedings. Hence due to lack of evidences furnished by the assessee in support of the grounds of appeal, the addition made by assessing officer was confirmed by ld.CIT(A).

Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 837/SRT/2025 Rachna Ashokbhai Valsad 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is left with no other alternative but to knock on the doors of the Tribunal with this appeal praying for justice. 8. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Learned Counsel submitted that assessee being agriculturalist, submitted during the assessment proceedings, entire documentary evidences to prove his claim such as, copy of balance sheet, capital account, statement for investment and copy of 7-12 & 8-A for holding agricultural land. The assessee also submitted source of investments like agriculture income (crops sales bills) etc, by e-mail to the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer, may be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. I have considered submissions of both the parties and find merit in the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that since entire documentary evidences to prove the claim were submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, such as, copy of balance sheet, capital account, statement for investment and copy of 7-12 & 8-A for holding agricultural land. The assessee also submitted source of investments like agriculture income (crops sales bills) etc, by e-mail to the Income-tax Officer. However, at the same time, I find that some of the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee, before the assessing officer, are self -servicing documents. I also note that taxing the receipts only has never been the motto of the Income-tax Act. In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services [2007] 165 Taxman 638 (SC) is reproduced below: Page 4 of 5

ITA No. 837/SRT/2025 Rachna Ashokbhai Valsad "It is important to bear in mind that u/s 4, the levy is on total income of the assessee computed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. What is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is not the gross receipt but the income under the Income Tax Act. The tax is on income but not on gross receipts."

Order is pronounced in the open court on 02/06/2026.

Sd/-/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member Surat Date: 02/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Surat  By order Guard File

Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/P.S. ITAT, Surat Page 5 of 5