SMT. BUGLI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1286/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 October 2026AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in not appearing before the AO and providing complete details, she was not afforded an adequate opportunity to prove her case, particularly as her application for additional evidence under Rule 46A was dismissed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the documents sought to be produced by the assessee, including the sale deed, bank account statements of her husband, and his income tax returns and audit reports, prima facie indicated that the entire sale consideration was paid by her husband. In the interest of natural justice and to provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and remand the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the case afresh after appreciating all the evidence, including the additional evidence the assessee intends to produce, and by providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee has assured that she will produce all evidence before the AO, failing which no further opportunity will be granted. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Bugli, is appealing an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially framed an assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income at Rs. 72,85,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69. This order was set aside by the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. In the second round, the AO issued notices under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice under Section 14(2(1)) via email, to which no response was received from the assessee. Consequently, the AO made a best judgment assessment under Section 144 read with Section 250 and 144B, confirming the addition of Rs. 72,85,000/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed, confirming the addition. The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 72,85,000/- on 05.08.2013. The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2014-15, and her Form 26AS showed no tax credits. During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee sought to submit additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was not allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 72,85,000/- on account of unexplained investment in property under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), is valid, considering the assessee's contention that the entire consideration was paid by her husband, Shri Sita Ram, and the denial of opportunity to submit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment was completed ex-parte as she was unaware of the proceedings and did not receive notices. She claimed the entire consideration of Rs. 72,85,000/- for the property was paid by her husband, Shri Sita Ram Bhati, from his bank account, supported by the sale deed and his bank statements. Shri Sita Ram Bhati is in the real estate business for over 15 years and paid from his disclosed and taxed income, evidenced by his ITRs for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16, along with tax audit reports and financial statements. The assessee sought to submit these documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 1286/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Smt. Bugli The ITO, 151 Balaiyo Ka Mohalla Ward-7(2), Vs Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN: EUVPB1541N (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 05-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 13-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Smt. Bugli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2014-15 on the ground that:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 72,85,000/- made by AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in property by not accepting the contention of assessee

I.T.A No. 1286/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Smt. Bugli

that entire consideration to buy the property was paid by her husband Sh. Sita Ram by making various incorrect observations. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: Initially assessment order was framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by assessing total income at Rs. 72,85,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. However the said assessment order was set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to re-adjudicate the same. During second round of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer reported to have issued two notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, one vide letter dated 08.07.2025 and then sent notices through speed post, again sent show cause notice u/s 14(2(1) of the Act, but no response of the assessee was received. It is recorded by AO in para 2 that all the aforesaid notices were issued and served through email balajitower@gmail.com and sitaram.bhati1969@gmail.com registered e-filing portal. On failure of the assessee to file complete details of the investment proceeded to determine the income of the

I.T.A No. 1286/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Smt. Bugli

assessee at Rs. 72,85,000/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 250 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Undisputedly, the assessee has purchased immovable property by virtue of the sale deed dated 05.08.2013 for a total consideration of Rs. 72,85,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the assessee did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2014-15, nor her Form -26AS reflects any TDS, advance tax or self assessment tax credits. It is also not in dispute that during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee sought to bring on record additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 , which was not allowed. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts when we examine the complete chronology of the case where the assessee has not appeared before the AO in the first round of assessment

I.T.A No. 1286/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Smt. Bugli

proceedings and again in the second round of proceedings, he has again not brought on record the complete details and the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass “best judgment assessment” and the assessee appears to be negligent. However keeping in view the fact that assessee is a lady and has sought to bring on record the complete detail in the form of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which was not allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is proved that the assessee, though remained negligent had not got adequate opportunity to prove her case as her application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules was dismissed . 7. The assessee during first appellate proceedings filed the submissions, which are extracted for ready perusal as under:- “i) The assessment was completed on an ex-parte basis as the appellant was unaware of the assessment proceedings and allegedly did not receive any notices/communications during the proceedings. (ii) The entire consideration for the purchase of the property amounting to Rs. 72,85,000/- was paid by her husband, Shri Sita Ram Bhati, from his own bank account. The details of payment are reflected in the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2013 itself.

(iii) Shri Sita Ram Bhati is engaged in the real estate business for more than 15 years, and the amount was paid from his disclosed and taxed income.

(iv) The following documents have been filed as additional evidence u/r 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: (a) Copy of the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2013,

I.T.A No. 1286/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Smt. Bugli

(b) Copy of bank account statement of Shri Sita Ram Bhati (Vijaya Bank, now merged with Bank of Baroda) for the relevant period; (c) Copies of ITR-V and computation of income of Shri Sita Ram Bhati for AY 2012-13 (total income Rs. 4,60,800/-), AY 2013-14 (total income Rs. 7,50,060/-), AY 2014-15 (total income Rs. 7,64,800/-), and AY 2015-16 (along with Tax Audit Reports in Form 3CB and 3CD and audited financial statements).” 8. Perusal of the submissions made by the assessee prima facie goes to prove that the entire sale consideration for the purchase of immovable property by virtue of the sale deed dated 05.08.2013 was paid by Shri Sita Ram Bhati through banking channel, for which he sought to bring on record copy of bank account statement. The assessee also sought to bring on record copy of ITR of her husband namely Shri Sita Ram Bhati for A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 along with tax audit reports in Form 3CB and 3CD and audited financial statements. All these facts prima facie indicate that the entire sale consideration was paid by her husband, but she has not been provided with opportunity to prove the same. All the aforesaid documents are available at page 2 to 42 of the paper books. 9. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the assessee, who shall produce the entire evidence including evidence

I.T.A No. 1286/JPR/2026 Page No 6 Smt. Bugli

which was subject matter of her application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules before the Assessing Officer. Assessee has also assured that she will produce the entire evidence before the Assessing Officer failing which no further opportunity shall be granted. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and case is remanded back to the AO to decide afresh after appreciating entire evidence sought to be brought on record by the assessee by way of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-10-2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 13/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur.

I.T.A No. 1286/JPR/2026 Page No 7 Smt. Bugli

6.

Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →