HELEN CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 31(1), NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

“ 1. The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 49,15,850/- to the income of appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- by treating the investments as unexplained investments u/s 69B.

6. The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of Ld. AO in deeming income of Rs.1,90,000/- without any basis or under any provision of the Act. “ 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an Individual. According to the ITS details available it was found that the assessee has invested Rs.47,00,000/- in mutual fund in Franklin Templeton, UTI Mutual Fund, Reliance Mutual Fund, HDFC Mutual Fund,, Fidelity Mutual Fund, and Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund. The assessee has not filed any return of income and, therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and assessee has not filed any original return of income as well as return in response to notice under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29th March, 2017. None appeared before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, learned AO made an addition of Rs.47,00,000/- on account of investment in mutual funds. He further noted that as per AIR information assessee has further income of Rs.25,854/- from Reliance Mutual Fund, same was also added under Section 69A of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer assumed that there is a minimum income of Rs.1,90,000/- of the assessee and thereby total taxable income of Rs. 49,15,854/- was determined by order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. 4. Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that assessee is non co-operative and, therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the Assessing Officer. In para 4 the assessee has sought several adjournments, which were granted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) and when on the last date i.e. 4.09.2018 there was no compliance, the ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that as the assessee has not furnished any information, the order of the AO is confirmed. Therefore, assessee is in appeal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that assessee is a senior citizen, un-married, through out her life worked abroad and retired as a Nurse from Saudi Arabia on 30.11.1994. She has stayed outside India for most part of her life and post retirement she came back. It was stated that the money she saved during her service and her retirement benefits were invested in India. The amount Page | 2 of investment has been made through her savings bank account. He also submitted copy of the bank statement from 1995 to 2001 showing the amount of funds available with her and stated that there is no unaccounted income. He, therefore, submitted that the addition deserves to be deleted.