Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file her return for AY 2010-11. Based on information regarding an immovable property purchase and bank credits, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings. The AO added Rs. 27,66,800/- for unexplained investments and Rs. 5,43,000/- for unexplained credits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims regarding the source of investments and credits. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal or furnish satisfactory evidence. However, considering that the husband's finances were audited and the assessee claimed to be in the business of trading sarees, the issues were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and unexplained credits are justified, and if the assessee has provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the sources.
Sections Cited
69, 68, 148, 147, 143(3), 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD
Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lalita Ramesh Jain, Vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Pune. C-14, Sukhwani Garden, Near Viney Yard Church, Dapodi, Pune- 411012. PAN : ADQPJ4514M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare Date of hearing : 03.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 03.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM:
This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 10.08.2024 which is arising out of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2010-11 framed on 22.12.2017 by the ITO, Ward-8(2), Pune.
When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the previous dates of hearing fixed for 29.10.2024, 21.11.2024 and 07.01.2025, valid notices of hearing were issued but there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee nor any application was filed for adjournment. Considering these facts, I deem it appropriate to adjudicate the issue raised in the instant appeal ex-parte qua assessee, with the able assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative and available records.
The assessee has raised eight grounds of appeal
raising following two grievance against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC :- (i) addition of Rs.27,66,800/- towards unexplained investments u/s 69 and (ii) addition u/s 68 at Rs.5,43,000/- for unexplained credits.
4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and did not file her return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11. Based on the information about the transaction of immovable property in the name of the assessee, the assessee was served with the notice u/s 148 and thereafter reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) were carried out. Ld. Assessing Officer noticed that during the year assessee had made investments for purchase of immovable property located at Gat No.9/1B/1A/1, and 9/3B/1B, Village Dapodi, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune for a consideration of Rs.27,66,800/- Ld. Assessing Officer also noticed that in the bank account of the assessee, there were certain unexplained credits including cash deposits amounting to Rs.5,43,000/-. The assessee furnished certain Assessing Officer and the reassessment proceedings were concluded fastening addition of Rs.33,09,800/- to the income declared by the assessee at Rs.1,81,890/- in the return of income filed in pursuance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.34,91,690/-.
5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the said additions and contended that the source of investments in the immovable property was from the loans/gifts received from her husband and also filed the copies of balance sheet of her husband. So far as the unexplained credits of Rs.5,43,000/-, she stated that it was from the regular source of income from her business of trading in sarees and accumulated capital balance. However, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not satisfied and confirmed the additions observing as follows (the relevant part is extracted) :- “5.2.4 The same were carefully examined and found that the balance sheet submitted by the appellant of her husband is without a date. Also, the balance sheet and P&L account of the appellant are unsigned and unstamped. The documents submitted by the appellant appear to be an afterthought. The appellant asked for adjournments many a times and at last came up with these unverifiable and non- certified documents which are unreliable in absence of proper signature of the Auditor. 5.2.5 The appellant has not given relevant documents such as Bank statement of her husband's Bank account. Hence, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditor are not proved.
Sufficient opportunities have been provided to the appellant for furnishing submission/ evidences in support of her grounds of appeal
. However, the appellant could not furnish any satisfactory explanation/ evidences. Accordingly, it is clear that the appellant has not discharged the onus and burden of proof as required under the respective provisions. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Ld. AO has rightly made the additions of Rs. 27,66,800/- u/s 69 and Rs 5,43,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the grounds of appeal No-3 and 4 are not allowed.”
6. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
7. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.
8. I have heard Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. The assessee is aggrieved with the addition of Rs.33,09,800/- which constitutes two amounts firstly, unexplained investments in immovable property of Rs.27,66,800/- and secondly, unexplained credits in the bank account at Rs.5,43,000/-. I observe that the assessee on one hand contended before the lower authorities that she is carrying on business of trading in sarees but she has not furnished the regular income tax return u/s 139 of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 in spite of the fact that she had made huge investments for purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.27,66,800/-. Further, her argument before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the source of Mr. Ramesh Jain but the same is not supported by any evidence in the form of bank statements and confirmation letter from Mr. Ramesh Jain and nor any affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ramesh Jain giving the alleged sum to his wife and the nature of the same being loan or gift. Even when sufficient opportunity was provided as it is appearing from para 4 of the impugned order where the assessee did not reply to the notice of hearing on the first six occasions and on the seven occasion requested for adjournment and finally replied on 29.07.2024. Even before the Tribunal also except filing the appeal, the assessee has not turned up on the previous dates of hearing. Prima-facie the case of the assessee deserves to be dismissed, however, taking a liberal approach and also considering that the assessee’s husband is filing the income tax return and his balance sheet is duly audited and that the assessee is carrying on business of trading of sarees as discernable from page 13 of the impugned order, I, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who shall carry out the appellate proceedings after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the