JAYASHRI MAHAVIR LOKHANDE,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 1, PANVEL

आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating investment in property amounting to Rs. 34,15,000/- as Unexplained Investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening is done mechanically without Application of Mind. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings need to be set aside including subsequent assessment order and consequential proceedings.

3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. The ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessing Officer has not given sufficient time to file reply. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no.3 of the assessment order, wherein, Assessing Officer has reproduced assessee’s submission dated 21.09.2021 requesting for further time. Ld.AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer should have given the reasons once assessee had filed the Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, Assessing Officer gave reasons on 22.09.2021 and assessment order was passed on 26.09.2021 without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to file objections. Ld.AR further submitted that one more opportunity may be provided.

Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).

Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 was issued on 23.03.2020 for A.Y.2013-14 based on the information regarding purchase of immovable property. The Assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 on 31.03.2021. The Assessee had requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 21.09.2021 to grant further time as due to Covid-19 Pandemic, Assessee was unable to collect the documents. In the letter dated 21.09.2021 Assessee also submitted that due to technical glitches on the e-filing portal, Assessee was unable to upload the documents. All these facts are recorded by the Assessing Officer in page no.3 of the assessment order. However, Assessing Officer without considering the request of the assessee passed the assessment order on 26.09.2021.

4.1 It is also observed that Assessing Officer had provided reasons for reopening vide letter dated 22.09.2021. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction in the case of G.K.N. Driveshaft 259 ITR 90, the reasons for reopening needs to be provided as soon as Assessee files Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. In this case, Return of Income was filed on 31.03.2021 whereas, reasons for reopening were provided on 22.09.2021 i.e. after a gap of six months. Therefore, it is apparent that Assessing Officer has not granted sufficient time to the Assessee to file objections.

5.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.