ANKITA ASHOK WAIRKAR,BORIVALI EAST, MUMBAI vs. ITO-42(1)(1) MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi - (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
I. The assessment order has been set-aside in total, to be made afresh by the AО
1) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC / CIT
Appeals had erred in set-aside the assessment order without disposing the ground on Reopening and Juri iction specifically taken in the Ground of appeal filed before him.

II. Reopening is bad in law:
Ankita Ashok Wairkar

2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in reopening the assessment by issuing the reopening notice u/s 148 of the act on 11.03.2023 is invalid since issued after 3 years from the end of AY 2016-17 and where the income escaping assessment is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the reassessment initiated in the present case deserves to be quashed.

3) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 dt 11/03/2023 which is issued by the Juri ictional A.O instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Therefore, reopening Notice u/s 148 of the act issued is bad in law.

4) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in reopening the assessment without taking the approval u/s 151 of the act of higher authority. Therefore, the reopening is bad in law.

5) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in reopening the assessment merely on the basis of information received without considering the fact that there was no tangible material on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened, further, the AО failed to apply his independent mind to such material before reopening the assessment, therefore the reopening is bad in law.

III. Addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- u/s 69 of the act
6) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in making the addition of Rs.
9,95,226/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the I T act on the basis that the assessee along with her husband jointly purchased the immovable property of Rs.57,69,950/- on 20.06.2015 and during the year the total consideration paid amounting to Rs. 26,61,403/- out of this her husband Sri Ashok
Shantaram Wairkar paid Rs. 16,66,177/- through Housing Loan and the balance amount of Rs.9,95,226/- paid during the year remains unexplained without appreciating the facts that during the year out of total consideration of Rs. 26,61,403/- the husband of the assessee has paid the consideration money of Rs.22,75,933/- to the vendor to purchase the property and balance payment of Rs.3,85,470/- is paid by the assessee.

7) The ld A.O failed to appreciating that the husband of the assessee had paid the consideration money to the vendor to purchase the property, and included the joint name of his wife. The assessee is housewife and paid only
Rs.3,85,470/- through her bank account of purchase the property. Thus, the Ankita Ashok Wairkar addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the I T act is bad in law.

IV. Addition u/s 69A for Cash deposited of Rs. 12,32,379/-
8) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in making the addition of Rs.12,32,379/- u/s 69A of the act on cash deposited in the assessee bank account without appreciation the facts that the source of cash deposits is the re-deposited of the cash withdrawals from the same bank account of the assessee and cash withdrawal from Husband account. In support of this the assessee enclosed the cash book. Therefore, the addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account of assessee was unjustified.”