VIMLA DEVI YADAV,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 697/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 October 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. The grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal pertain to the confirmation of the assessment order by the CIT(A) without considering the sub-judice nature of the property's title, the admission of additional evidence, and a subsequent compromise decree from the National Lok Adalat. The judgment does not contain the Tribunal's findings on these grounds or the reasoning behind any decision. The operative directions are also not recorded in the provided text. The specific amount in dispute is Rs. 18,75,000 as unexplained investment and Rs. 39,97,000 as income from other sources.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vimla Devi Yadav, is appealing an order from the NFAC (Delhi) dated July 21, 2026, which upheld an assessment order for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee initially did not file a return of income. The revenue initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 after discovering the purchase of an immovable property valued at Rs. 54,97,000. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 1,90,610. During reassessment, the assessee provided a sale deed, bank statements, and claimed the payment was made by her deceased son, alleging fraud by the seller and a pending civil suit. The Assessing Officer found a lack of details regarding payment and stamp duty, treating Rs. 18,75,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE and Rs. 39,97,000 as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x). The assessment order was passed on February 7, 2025, under Section 147 r.w.s 144B.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order without appreciating that the title and existence of the property were sub-judice before the Civil Court, Jhansi (Assessee's contention). The revenue's contention is not recorded. 2. Whether the admission of additional evidence was permissible, particularly in light of a subsequent cancellation of the sale deed by a Civil Court decree, as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 (Assessee's contention). The revenue's contention is not recorded. 3. Whether a compromise decree dated May 9, 2026, from the National Lok Adalat, concerning the civil suit regarding the property's possession and a direction to the seller, should have been considered by the CIT(A) (Assessee's contention). The revenue's contention is not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69B,Section 115BBE,Section 56(2)(x),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 697/Agr/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vimla Devi Yadav, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), 92/1B, CP Mission Jhansi-284001 Compound, Jhansi-284001

PAN: AAXPY9911F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Harsh Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.10.2026

ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.07.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10442995 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein, ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

ITA 697/Agr/2026

2.

Briefly stating, the assessee did not file return of income for A.Y. 2020-21. It came to the notice of the revenue that an immovable property valued at Rs. 54,97,000/- was purchased by the assessee during the year under consideration. After obtaining approval from the competent authority, assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147, by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024. The assessee filed return in response thereof on 01.05.2024, declaring income of Rs. 1,90,610/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, seeking details in respect of the purchase of aforesaid immovable property. Assessee filed her reply and provided the sale deed dated 21.01.2020, bank accounts statements, computation of income etc. Assessee submitted that the payment was made by his son who died in an accident on 03.02.2019 and payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid by cheque as per sale deed and suit was filed by assessee on 31.05.2024 in Civil Court, Jhansi, regarding the possession of property. Assessee further submitted that seller committed fraud. The assessing officer noticed that assessee failed to provide details of payment regarding purchase of property and stamp duty and no payment was made from assessee’s bank account regarding stamp duty and payment to seller. The assessing officer thus treated assessee’s investment amounting to Rs. 18,75,000/- (Rs. 15,00,000/- as consideration + Rs. 3,75,000/- as Registration/Stamp fee)

2 | P a g e

ITA 697/Agr/2026

as unexplained investment u/s 69B r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act. Further Rs. 39,97,000/- (54,97,000/- as stamp value – 15,00,000/-as actual value) was treated as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and added in the total income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 07.02.2025 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 4. Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT A has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the facts and material already available on record, including the fact that the very existence and title of the property in question was, and continues to be, subjudice before the Civil Court, Jhansi. 2. Admission of additional evidence subsequent cancellation of the sale deed by a decree of a competent Civil Court in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 3. That during the pendency of the appeal before the Ld. CIT A, the civil suit bearing Original Suit No. 203/2024 (renumbered as Mool Vaad No. 251/2026 on reference to the Lok Adalat), pending before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Causes, Jhansi, culminated in a compromise between the Appellant (plaintiff) and the seller/defendant, was decreed by the National Lok Adalat vide order/award dated 09.05.2026 with a direction to sub registrar for cancellation of Sale Deed, Thus it establish that no physical possession have been given by the seller and thus section 56(2)(x) of the Act stands cancelled ab initio, as the transaction of purchase of the property in question has been rendered null and void. 4. That the Ld. CIT A has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,75,000 comprising sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000 and stamp duty OR registration expenses of Rs. 3,75,000/-) as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act, without properly appreciating the explanation and evidence furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings.” 5. We have perused the records. Heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue. 3 | P a g e

ITA 697/Agr/2026

6.

The main point for determination, on the basis of the grounds raised under appeal, is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned additions made by the assessing officer, ignoring assessee’s explanation and evidence. 7. Ld representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that the addition of Rs. 39,97,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and the addition of Rs. 18,75,000/- u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, was made on the basis of sale deed dated 21.01.2020 executed in favour of the appellant assessee in respect of the property situated at Arazi No. 191, Mauza- Lehargird, Teh & Distt- Jhansi, treating the same as valid and subsisting document. Ld AR further submitted that the Original Suit No. 203/2024, Smt. Vimla Devi Yadav V. Garothi was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi, for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.01.2020 on the ground that the disputed property did not exist at the said location, the possession of the property was never delivered and the appellant was defrauded by the seller. The said suit was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties on 09.05.2026 and the registered sale deed dated 21.01.2020 stood cancelled with a communication of such cancellation to the Sub Registrar, Sadar-II, Jhansi. The copy of cancellation of the decree could not be produced during the proceedings before the ld CIT(A) on account of drawing up and certification of the

4 | P a g e

ITA 697/Agr/2026

decree by the Civil Court and consequent documentation required for communication of the cancellation to the Sub Registrar concerned. The Sub Registrar cancelled the sale deed on 10.09.2026. The assessee has, therefore, prayed to admit the aforesaid public documents as additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 8. Ld Sr DR has opposed assessee’s prayer and supported the impugned order. 9. We notice that assessee has now obtained the decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.01.2020 on the basis of which the said additions were confirmed by the revenue. It also appears that consequent to the decree of the Civil Judge dated 09.05.2026, the concerned Sub Registrar has also cancelled the sale deed on 10.09.2026, whereas the impugned order was passed on 21.07.2026. It is undisputed that during first appellate proceedings, the civil suit was pending before the Civil Court. In such circumstances, we admit the additional evidence produced by the appellant assessee and restore the matter back to the file of ld assessing officer with a direction to take the aforesaid additional evidence into consideration and thereafter pass order a fresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

5 | P a g e

ITA 697/Agr/2026

10.

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

Order pronounced in Open Court on- 15.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 26.10.2026 *Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →