SADHANA SINGH,RANCHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 April 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the property was purchased from loan funds and that documents were not produced due to improper handling of notices. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file her return of income for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer treated a property purchase of Rs. 62,11,100/- as unexplained investment and made additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the investment in property was adequately explained by loan funds, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to produce supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, – RANCHI BENCH

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – RANCHI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member ITA No.321/RAN/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sadhana Singh. …………………………..……………………………...Appellant Flat-2C, Block-A, Spring Valley Phase-One, Lower Burdwan Compound Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 [PAN: IGEPS9314F] vs. A.O. Ward 3(1), Ranchi………….………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances by: Shri Harsh Verma, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 13, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 16, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.08.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, did not file her return of income for the assessment year 2020–21. Based on the specific information available with the Income Tax Department, it was observed that the assessee had purchased immovable property during the year for a total consideration of Rs. 62,11,100/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued requiring the assessee to file her return of income, however, no return was filed. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued, but the assessee failed to comply. Further

ITA No.321/Ran/2025 Sadhana Singh notices were issued which remained uncompiled with. In view of the persistent non-compliance, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs. 62,11,100/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. Further, a sum of Rs. 6,14,000/- was also added to the income of the assessee, and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 68,25,100/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Still aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR contended that that property was purchased out of loan funds obtained from State Bank of India in joint name with her husband. It was submitted that the payments were directly made to the seller from the loan account, and therefore, the source of the investment is duly explained. It was further submitted that due to none proper handling of notices, the relevant documents would not be produced before the lower authorities and one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate the claim of the assessee.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below.

6.

We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record, we observed that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings, no documentary evidences was furnished before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also decided the matter based on available material on record. However, the assessee has now taken specific plea that the investment in property was made out of loan obtained from a

ITA No.321/Ran/2025 Sadhana Singh bank joint name which require proper verification. In the interest of justice and fair play, it is necessary to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish the supported documents including loan sanctions and disbursement documents, bank statements, purchased deed of property, details of payment made to the seller which shall be considered during the remand proceedings. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 16th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Ratnesh Nandan Sahay] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 16.04.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →