INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHAR IT PARK, THANE vs. HEMLATA SUNIL PHOPALKAR, THANE EAST
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM
Per Padmavathy S, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short
"the CIT(A)" dated 09.08.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal –
“a. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case.
b. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the A.O. to examine the additional evidence admitted by him as per the provisions u/s. 46A(3) of the I. T. Rules, 1962. c. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the additional evidences which had not stood the test of enquiries in assessment proceedings.
d. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary.”
The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the AY 2018-19. The AO has received an information that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- during the financial year 2017-18. Therefore, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) reopening the assessment of the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO and did not file the return of income, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 wherein he has added the entire consideration towards purchase of property under section 69 of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CITI(A) that she is the housewife not having any source of income and hence did not file the return of income. The assessee further submitted that she is not aware of the Income tax proceedings and the notices issued by the AO and hence, could not respond. The assessee also submitted that she is the second owner of the property and that the entire consideration towards purchase of the property was made out of income sources of assessee's husband Shri Sunil Phopalkar. It is also submitted before the CIT(A) that assessee's husband is assessed to income tax and is regularly filing the return of income. The assessee also filed the additional details in support of the claim that the funds for the purchase of the house property are sourced from assessee's husband. The CIT(A) “5. I have carefully gone through the assessment order and the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant. I have considered the statement of facts submitted by the appellant. As per facts of the case, the appellant being one of the co-owner purchased residential property from Savita Homemakers LLP for Rs.1,16,00,000/-. The appellant has submitted documents obtained from the Sub