REKHA YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-5(1), NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order passed by the ITO, ward-51(1), New Delhi, under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.12.2019 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
2
Rekha Yadav
A.Y. 2012-13
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.
NFAC/CIT(A) erred in -
1. dismissing the appeal of the assessee without providing reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing;
2. in omitting to consider relief on the basis of the Statement of facts and arguments with supporting documents submitted in response to notice for hearing on the portal;
3. confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer- a. initiation proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act without there being any valid reason leading to belief of escapement of any income; b. passing order u/s 144/147 of the Act without providing reasons recorded for forming belief of escapement of any income:
c. passing order u/s 144/147 of the Act determining taxable income at Rs. 42.49,080/- against the returned income in a sum of Rs. 6.01.860/- without providing proper, reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing; d. making following additions to the returned income - i. Rs.8,97,217/- on account of cash deposited in bank treating the same as unexplained invoking section 69A of the Act:
ii. Rs.27,50,000/- being the amount of investment made in purchase of house property treating the same as unexplained invoking section 69 of the Act.”
Facts, in brief are that AO had received a tax evasion petition in the case of assessee alleging that assessee had purchased various properties whereas she was not engaged in any business or service. It was also alleged that during F.Y 2011- 12, the assessee had purchased one property lying at 204, Ist Floor, Vivekanand
3
Rekha Yadav
A.Y. 2012-13
Puri, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-11007 on 29.11.2011. Accordingly, case of the assessee was reopened. In reassessment proceedings the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 08.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,01,860/-. The AO completed the assessment at Rs. 42,49,077/- by adding Rs. 8,97,217/- on account of unexplained cash credits and Rs. 27,50,000/- as unexplained investment in house property u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who in turn affirmed the said addition, inter alia, by observing as under:
“I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order.
During the year under consideration the assessing officer had reasons to believe that the assessee had made unexplained cash deposits of Rs.
08,97,217/- and made unexplained investment in purchase of property of Rs.
27,50,000/-. As the assessee failed to reply and provide any required details.
Hence, the A.O. completed the assessment and passed order u/s. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act dated 28.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs.
42,49,080/.
5.2 It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any new evidence in support of its grounds of appeal. The appellant has challenged the addition in the different grounds of appeal. However, the appellant has not furnished any, new written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has failed to do so even after several opportunities given as detailed in the preceding paras. In absence of any new written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as I have no reason to interfere with the assessment order. As such, I do not find any infirmity in 4
Rekha Yadav
A.Y. 2012-13
the order of Assessing Officer. Therefore, Addition of Rs. 8,97,217/- and Rs.
27,50,000/- is hereby sustained on merits.”
The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that before the Ld. First Appellate Authority he had filed written submissions and few documents in support of the investment in question which were not taken into consideration in a proper perspective by the said authority nor there was any deliberation on the merit of the matter. Therefore, the statutory condition as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act has not been complied with by the learned First Appellate authority. He prayed that the matter be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merit upon granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Learned DR supported the orders of authorities below. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case this Bench deems it fit and proper to dispose of the appeal by quashing the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue to the Ld.CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh by passing a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at 5 Rekha Yadav A.Y. 2012-13
the time of hearing of the matter. It is also made clear that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) the said authority would be at liberty to pass orders strictly in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 17.04.2025. (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
*MP*