Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is appealing an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 20,77,000/- as unexplained money from the sale of an immovable property. The assessee claims the investment and sale proceeds were handled by her husband.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it perverse as it was passed ex-parte despite the assessee filing a reply. The case is remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions, and whether the addition of sale proceeds as unexplained money was justified when the transaction was allegedly handled by the husband.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J (SMC
order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 10/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 30/11/2018, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2011- 2012.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC Assessment Year 2011-2012 Delhi has erred in passing ex-parte order under Section 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC Delhi has erred in making Addition of Rs.20,77,000/- as sales proceeds from Immovable Property as Unexplained Money u/s.69A of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal arbitrarily by overlooking incurable fundamental errors of Law, leading to miscarriage of justice.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC Delhi has erred in not considering the Appellant’s submission that the entire investment in joint immovable property was made by the Appellant’s husband, and the entire ales consideration was also received by the Appellant’s husband only. The Appellant’s name [wife] was made by the Appellant, nor any sale consideration was received by the Appellant, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Hence, there is no justification for making the addition merely on presumptive basis and on surmise and conjectures as Unexplained Money u/s.69A of I.T. Act in the hands of Appellant, which is bad in law and void ab initio, deserves to be quashed and deleted.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC Delhi has erred in confirming entire sales proceeds of Rs.20,77,000/- as Unexplained Money u/s.69A without giving deduction of Purchase consideration of said immovable joint property as per I.T.Act.
6. That without prejudice to above legal ground, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC Delhi, on the issue of Unexplained Money u/s.69A of the Act, erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances, failing to appreciate the Human aspects of relationship between husband and wife, the entire contribution towards purchase was made by husband and entire sale proceeds was also received by husband 2 Assessment Year 2011-2012 for investments in question and the Appellant’s name [wife] included as a joint holder of the said property out of love and affection – a sacred task – and it cannot be regarded as a “sin” or treated as Unexplained Investment.
7. Notwithstanding the above, the appellant contends that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC Delhi has erred in not deciding the issue on merit. The Appellant prays that the matter be adjudicated on merits and the addition of Rs.22,57,000/- made under the I.T. Act in the impugned order be deleted, as no such addition was tenable in the hands of the Appellant”
Heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.
In the present case assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 30/11/2018. The appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide impugned order dated, 10/02/2025 by way of present appeal. We find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee holding as under:
“2. Ground No.2 objects to making an addition of Rs.20,77,000/- being sale proceeds from immovable property. During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of ITS details in the name of the assessee, sale of immovable property of Rs.20,77,000/-. As stated earlier, show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking him to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank accounts. But the assessee failed to file any explanation of cash deposits in the bank account. In this case, the assessee has not bothered to attend or file any submission even after so many opportunity of being heard to explain the transaction. Hence, transaction remains unexplained. In view of the above, the amount of Rs.20,77,000/- is unexplained. Hence, an addition of Rs.20,77,000/- is made to the total Income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. The addition of Rs.20,77,000/- is confirmed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the CIT(A) had recorded that the Assessee has neither attended the hearing nor filed the submissions before the CIT(A). However, we find that notice of 3 Assessment Year 2011-2012 hearing dated, 15/01/2025 was issued to the Assessee and in response to the same Assessee filed the reply on 27/01/2025 (Acknowledgment Number: 843302841270125]. The aforesaid reply was filed before due date of submissions i.e. 30/01/2025. Thus, the order passed by Learned CIT(A) is contrary to the material on record and therefore, suffers from perversity. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10/02/2025, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside with the directions to decide the appeal preferred by the Assessee afresh after taking into consideration the above reply filed by the Assessee and after giving the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file before the Learned CIT(A) compilation containing all the submissions and details filed during the assessment and appellate proceedings. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed, while Ground No.2 to 7 raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous.
In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.