Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased immovable property for Rs. 25,43,490/- without disclosing the investment or explaining its source to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO treated the amount as unexplained investment and added it to the total income. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision to ensure the dispute is decided on merits and the assessee gets an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be decided on merits despite the assessee's failure to provide information, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for a fresh opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
69, 147, 143(3), 250, 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1330/JPR/2025
ORDER
PER : RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of thelearned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated02.06.2023 [hereinafter referred as “(CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for the assessment year 2013-14 in the matter of Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising therein following grounds of appeal; ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.25,43,490/- on account of unexplained investment without giving proper opportunity to explain the case as majority of the notices SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR issued during the Covid Period. Such action is against the principles of natural justice.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the AO u/s 69 of IT Act, 1961 without considering the fact that investment made by the assessee is out of the explained sources and such investment is not unexplained as held by the AO.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 434 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay giving therein the reason that the assessee was suffering with severe Spinal problem and was undergoing physiotherapy session since June, 2022. There is no malafide intention in such delay and it is because of illness and thus, the assessee was prevented to file an appeal in time. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above reason for such delay. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR submitted that the appeal is filed with inordinate delay and the bench may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay of 464 days in the present appeal is sufficient to SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR condone the delay as there was health issue of the assessee. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delayin filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.
3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed from the assessment order that the AO had issued show cause notice on 22-10- 2018 to the asssessee and it was served upon through registered post but in compliance thereof, the assessee did not file the required information/ details for verification of the investment made by him in purchasing of immovable property for a cost of acquisition of Rs.25,43,490/- on 31-10- 2013. Thus the assessee failed to explain the source of investment of Rs.25,43,490/- and the AO treated the amount of Rs.25,43,490/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment for the year under consideration and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:-
SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 5. DECISION: Ground No. 1 and 2:- During the appellate proceedings, notice of hearing issued on 04-01-2021, 07-01-2021, and 03-05-2023 under section 250 of the Act, no written submissions were made by the appellant. The appeal is disposed after considering the submission of the appellant, facts on record and position of law. During the assessment proceedings, as per the information received from DDIT, Jaipur that assessee has purchased the immovable property in village Sanganer, Jaipur The assessee did not disclose the total investment of Rs. 25,43,490/- in the return of income. The assessee failed to explain the source of investment of Rs. 25,43,490/- therefore the assessing officer has treated as unexplained investment of Rs. 25,43,490/- and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee failed to submit source of investment before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings, despite of the several opportunities given by assessing officer. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has neither submitted any supporting documents nor explained the reasons. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the AO on these issues. The action of the assessing officer is justified, therefore, grounds of appeal
1 to 2 are dismissed. Ground No. 3 to 5:- During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has neither submitted any supporting documents related to the above grounds. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the AO on these issues. The action of the assessing officer is justified, therefore, grounds of appeal 3 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general ground, therefore, does not require adjudication
6. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed u/s. 250 read with section 251 of Income tax Act, 1961.’’ 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee is an illiterate person having income from dairy activities. The assessee has no taxable income and, therefore, she did not file a return of income. The ld. AR submitted that the AO made an addition in the hands of SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR the assessee amounting to Rs.25,43,490/- as the assessee failed to explain the source of investment which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that lower authorities have passed ex-parte orders in the case of the assessee during Covid Period and the assessee was not provided withadequate opportunity of being heard. Hence, the assessee may be given one more chance to contest the case before the AO and settle the issue in question. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order making addition of Rs.25,43,490/- u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had not filed the required information/ details for verification of the investment made by him in purchasing of immovable property for a cost acquisition of Rs.25,43,490/- on 31-10-2013. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not submitted any documents to controvert the order of the AO before the ld. CIT(A). The Bench noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, she could not put forth her defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case, However, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.
SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /04/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29 /04/2025 *Mishra, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Smt.Anop Devi Sharma, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 7 (4), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत