ANITA PANCHOLI,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 1547/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 September 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the property was purchased by the assessee and her husband as co-owners, and an agreement for construction was executed for Rs. 62,50,000/-. While the AO treated the investment cost as Rs. 96,66,000/- based on seized material, the developer's partner later filed a retraction statement within 48 hours stating the cost was Rs. 62,50,000/-. The assessee also provided bank statements and sources of investment. The Tribunal noted that the AO made the entire addition in the assessee's hands without considering her husband's share. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the jurisdictional AO for a fresh order after giving the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The AO was also directed not to invoke section 115BBE for the assessment year, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Deepak Maratha (supra). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anita Pancholi, filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring Rs. 4,67,540/-. Information from a survey in the case of M/s. A Mark Developers indicated an agreement for construction between the assessee and the developer for Rs. 62,50,000/-. However, seized papers suggested a total investment of Rs. 96,66,000/-. A notice under section 148A(b) was issued, followed by a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 46,66,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) read with section 115BBE. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A), NFAC erred in deciding the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, considering the death of the assessee's counsel and non-receipt of notices? 2. Whether the CIT(A), NFAC erred in not deciding the case on merits and confirming the addition of Rs. 46,66,000/- made by the AO under section 69, by not appreciating that Rs. 12,50,000/- is verified from the bank account and the balance amount was not incurred by the assessee, as evidenced by an affidavit from the developer? 3. Whether the lower authorities erred in taxing the alleged amount under section 115BBE at 60% instead of 30%, by ignoring that the substituted section is applicable from 01.04.2017 onwards and not to transactions prior to that date, as held in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the death of the assessee's counsel, Shri Sunil Butaney, who passed away on 29.05.2025, preventing communication of hearing notices. - The actual cost of construction was Rs. 62,50,000/-, not Rs. 96,66,000/-. The source of Rs. 12,50,000/- was verified from bank statements, and the remaining amount was not incurred by the assessee, supported by an affidavit from the developer, Shri Kush Jain. - Section 115BBE, as substituted, is not applicable for AY 2017-18, relying on Deepak Maratha vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue supported the order passed by the CIT(A) and requested confirmation of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69,Section 271AAC(1),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA

PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 13.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and her main source of income is from ‘Gota Work’. She filed her

I.T.A No. 1547/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Anita Pancholi

return of income f

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →