RENU JAGDISHWAR SOOD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1241/Ahd/2025
(िनधारण
िनधारण
िनधारण
िनधारण वष
वष
वष
वष / Assessment Year : 2018-19)
Renu Jagdishwar Sood
503/504, 5A, Milestone
Patliputra, Mumbai
Jogeshwari West, S.O.
Mumbai, Maharashtra –
400102
बनाम
बनाम
बनाम
बनाम/
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer
Ward-3(3)(1),
Ahmedabad
थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : APFPS7917C
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by :
Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by :
Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing
14/10/2025
Date of Pronouncement
29/10/2025
(आदेश
आदेश
आदेश
आदेश)/ORDER
PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
(hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal
Centre
(hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”),
Delhi dated
10.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment
Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
ITA No. 1241/Ahd/2025 [Renu
Jagdishwar Sood vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 –
“1. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in not granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and in deciding the appeal vide ex-parte order, as the notices were not received on e-mail as stated in Form No.35. 2. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have held that the re-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law information pertained to Stamp Valuation Office, Wada, District
Palghar (Maharashtra) and not of Gujarat.
That on facts, and in law, it ought to have been held that the entire assessment order is invalid and void ab-initio as the juri iction lies in Maharashtra and not in Gujarat.
That on facts, and in law, the learned NEAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.51,92,550/- made u/s 69 of the Act towards alleged unexplained investment for purchase of property, and in confirming the levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, ignoring the fact, that the said investment is made by appellant's husband and duly reflected in his bank statements and returns filed.
That on facts, and in law, the learned NEAC bas grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,751/- made towards interest income from bank, ignoring the fact that the appellant is not having taxable income.”
The solitary issue in the present appeal is the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of alleged unexplained investment in immovable property amounting to Rs.51,92,550/- made u/s. 69 of the Act.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order are ex parte orders. However, he pleaded that on the basis of facts on record itself the addition was not sustainable. He, therefore, pleaded for the issue to be adjudicated at this stage. He pointed out that in the impugned case, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee had purchased immovable property and the assessee was ITA No. 1241/Ahd/2025 [Renu Jagdishwar Sood vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – noted to be a non-filer of return of income. This information was obtained from the