SMT. SUMAN KOHLI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6294/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 November 2020AY 2005-063 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding a bank account in her deceased husband's name. The assessee claimed she never operated the account and the funds were from a HUF. The assessee later opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made to the assessee's income was justified, considering the bank account belonged to her deceased husband and the assessee's claim of HUF funds. The validity of the notice under Section 148 was also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Dr. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.11.2020Pronounced: 10.11.2020

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi, dated 11.02.2014.

2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

1. Because, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee is the joint holder of the Bank Account No.166010100036449 in the name of Jaipal Kumar Kohli (husband of the assessee), in the Axis Bank.

2.

Because, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the above mentioned Bank Account was opened by Jaipal Kumar Kohli (husband of the assessee) and the same was operated only by him. It is submitted that the 2 Smt. Suman Kohli assessee never operated the above said bank account before the death of Jaipal Kumar Kohli (husband of the assessee).

3. Because, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that the real person who opened the above said bank account was the Karta of Hindu Undivided Family.

4.

Because, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed error in acceding to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 9,70,000/- in the total income of the assessee considering that there was peak investment of Rs. 9,70,000/- in the Bank Account No. 166010100036449 in the assessment year 2005-06, whereas, the above bank account was in the name of Jaipal Kumar Kohli (husband of the assessee), opened and operated by him.

5. Because, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed error in shifting the burden of proof on the assessee to explain the investment made in the Bank Account No. 166010100036449 in the name of Jaipal Kumar Kohali (husband of the assessee).

6. Because, the addition made in the hands total income of the assessee is not justified, particularly when the investment was made by Jaipal Kumar Kohli (husband of the assessee).”

3.

The assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and therefore, the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice is liable to be quashed.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.”

3 Smt. Suman Kohli 4. At the outset, it was brought to the notice of bench by the ld. AR that the assessee has filed application under the “Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020” and has already submitted Form 1 and 2.

5.

Keeping in view the exercise of option by the assessee to opt for the scheme, the appeal of the assessee is being dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal in case the “Form 3” has not been issued by the designated authority.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/11/2020.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →