REENA DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-43(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2312/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 April 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's re-joinder to the Remand Report was overlooked, and the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to adduce requisite evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Reena Devi, challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of INR 42,85,500/- under Section 69 for unexplained investment in a property purchase. The original assessment was ex-parte under Section 144/147, and the assessee contended the investment was made by her father-in-law, Mr. Daler Singh, and that the assessment order violated natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment was justified, considering the assessee's claim of the source of funds and the alleged violation of natural justice due to an ex-parte assessment and non-consideration of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.04.2025Pronounced: 09.04.2025

ORDER

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 18.03.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed under s. 144/147 of the Act relevant to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal

, the assessee has challenged the impugned action of the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO amounting to INR 42,85,500/- under s. 69 of the Act on the ground that source of investment of the aforesaid sum for a purchase of property has not been explained satisfactorily.

3. In this context, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without serving the notice on the assessee under the provisions of the Act. The additional evidences were filed in the first appeal. The CIT(A) called for the Remand Report and confronted such Remand Report to the assessee. The assessee in turn filed a re-joinder to the Remand Report. However, the contents of the re-joinder has been over-looked and not considered by the CIT(A). On merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the source of investment is fully explainable. The payment has been made for purchase of property by the father in law, Mr. Daler Singh on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the additions made are not justified and the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

4.

Having regard to the submissions and in the light of facts emerging from record, I consider it expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law and by way of a speaking order. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise such plea as may be considered expedient and adduce requisite evidences in support of the plea raised.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →