SUMITA SETHI (ALSO KNOWN AS SUMITA MALIK UPON MARRIAGE),DUBAI (UAE) vs. DCIT/ACIT-INT-TAX, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 926/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence along with copies of bank statements in support of the grounds of appeal. The Revenue's representative offered no objection to this application. Considering the material facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the AO. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The specific issues regarding the addition under Section 69 and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were not decided on merits, as the case was remanded back to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sumita Sethi, is in appeal against an order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO)/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, under Sections 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. Information flagged under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy indicated the assessee invested Rs. 73,49,215/- in immovable property during the relevant financial year. As no return was filed, assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 were initiated. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 06.04.2022. The assessee filed her return on 20.03.2022. Subsequent notices under Section 142(1) were issued, and the assessee provided a reply on 10.05.2023. The AO made an addition of Rs. 73,49,215/- under Section 69.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the AO erred in determining the assessable income at INR 14,02,566/- by making an addition of INR 13,63,495/-, as against the returned income of INR 39,071/- (Section 69 of the Act). 2. Whether the AO/DRP violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged unexplained income of INR 13,63,495/-. 3. Whether the AO erred in holding that the amount paid by the assessee as consideration for immovable property amounting to INR 13,63,495/- is unexplained and liable to tax in India (Section 69 of the Act). 4. Whether the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The AO erred in making additions and determining assessable income. The principle of natural justice was violated. The amount paid for immovable property was wrongly treated as unexplained. Penalty proceedings were wrongly initiated. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144C,Section 151,Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Akash Saraf, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 926/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumita Sethi @ Sumita Malik, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income House No. 181 Sector 14, Tax/Assistant Commissioner of Urban Estate, Karnal -131 001 Income Tax, INT. Tax. Haryana Gurgaon (Haryana) PAN: BPLPS9878F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Akash Saraf, CA Department by Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Date of hearing 04.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025

ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 21.12.2024 of Learned Assessing Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO") under Sections 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) for assessment year 2015-16.

ITA No. 926/Del/2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of assessee, certain information was flagged In the case of the assessee, certain information was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT on ITBA portal under the head 'NMS cases'. As per information, the assessee had invested in immovable property to the tune of Rs.73,49,215/- during financial year 2014-16 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. As the assessee had not filed any return of income for financial year 2014-16 relevant to assessment year 2015-16, assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act, 1961 were initiated by passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 06.04.2022 after obtaining necessary approval of the Competent Authority under Section 151 of the Act. The notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and delivered electronically through ITBA system. In response to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed her ITR on 20.03.2022. Subsequent notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee from time to time vide which the assessee was requested to furnish the details of sources of above mentioned investments/transactions. In response to 142(1) of the Act dated 02.05.2023, assessee filed her reply on 10.05.2023. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 21.12.2024 made addition of Rs.73,49,215/- under Section 69 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds:

ITA No. 926/Del/2025 “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. AO has erred in determining the assessable income of the Assessee at INR 14,02,566/- as against the returned income of INR 39,071/- by making an addition of INR 13,63,495/-. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in violating principal of natural justice by not giving the Appellant opportunity being heard for providing for the alleged unexplained income of INR 13,63,495/-. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in holding that the amount paid by the 3 Assessee as consideration for purchase of immovable property amounting to INR 13,63,495/- is unexplained and is liable to tax in India. 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section-271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based on the above grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4.

At the time of hearing, Learned authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted application for admission of additional evidence along with copies of bank statements. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue gave no objection to the application. 6. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee has filed application for additional evidence along with bank statement in the appeal in support of grounds of appeal. In view of above material facts, in the interest of justice, impugned order dated

ITA No. 926/Del/2025 21.12.2024 of Ld. AO is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for passing of fresh order in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( M BALAGANESH ) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23rd December, 2025. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →