PREMLATA TIBREWALA ,JHUNJHUNU, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD-4(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1489/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
Ward-4(3),
Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AASPT3687Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. (Through V.C) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
:19/03/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 09/04/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, Judicial Member.
As to Why this appeal by the assessee?
Assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by order dated 23.10.2024, passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, relating to the Assessment
Year 2009-10, even when, while disposing of her appeal filed there, the 2
What was the Impugned assessment order-that stands set aside?
3. The assessment order set aside by Ld. CIT(A) was passed by the Assessing Officer on 27.12.2016 computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,13,480/-. The case of the department against the assessee is that she had invested in mutual fund, an amount of Rs. 24.40
lakhs and that no source of such investment of Rs. 24,40,000/- was filed by her, during assessment proceedings.
4. Arguments heard. File Perused.
5. Record reveals that proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2016. Thereupon, the assessee furnished her return of income declaring the income of Rs. 73,480/- only.
Subsequently, when notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to the assessee, she submitted her reply dated 09.11.2016. As noticed above, case of the department against the assessee is that she was found to have invested in a mutual fund, an amount of Rs.
24.40 lakhs.
The plea put forth by the assessee in her reply was that of ignorance about any such investment in any mutual fund. She claimed to be operating only one bank account with State Bank of Bikaner.
Thereupon, show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Since, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied, impugned assessment order was passed by observing in para 5 as under:-
“5. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with this office it was observed that during the year under consideration the assessee invested Rs.24,40,000/- in purchase of units in mutual fund on dated
23/09/2008 from Karvy Computershare Private Ltd Karvy Co MPU Tershare
However no source of such investment of Rs. 24,40,000/- has been filed by assessee till date. Since the assessee has failed to discharge her onus of proving the source of such investment of Rs. 24,40,000/- in purchase of units in mutual fund.
Therefore vide this office show cause letter dated 20.12.2016 assessee was asked to explain as to why the same may not be added in her income.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case I have no other alternative but to add a sum of Rs. 24,40,000/- into the total income of the assessee for tax purposes, being investment of Rs. 24,40,000/- from the undisclosed income, as no justification for source of such investment of Rs.
24,40,000/- has been furnished by the assessee despite providing ample opportunities to her.
The assessee has not furnished her particular of income correctly and thus tried to evade taxes. As such the case of the assessee also falls in the same category for which penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act,
1961 for concealing the particulars of her income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of her income are being separately initiated.”
8. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that in para 6.3 of the impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte as the appellant did not furnish any written submissions or evidence during assessment proceedings, but, actually it was not so, and that rather, the assessee had put forth her reply and relevant documents.
Officer had to observe that the assessee was intentionally avoiding compliance with various notices/letters..
From the assessment order, it can be gathered that for the first time, the assessee submitted her reply dated 09.11.2016 to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
Reply of the assessee has been reproduced at page 2 of the assessment order.
In this regard, relevant portion of the assessment order needs to be extracted. Same reads as:
“3. ………..On date of hearing assessee AR filed written reply stated in that "the assessee has never invested any such amount as given in the notice towards mutual funds. She has maintained the single bank, copy of pass book has been enclosed as Annexure-1. 7
As it is matter and the assessees has shifted her residence from Jaipur to Jhunjhunu. So unusually it has taken some time to produce the required documents.".
On 24.10.2016, Ld. CA of the assessee filed an application before the Assessing Officer for providing of reasons which led to issuance of notice u/s 148. At the same time, she pleaded ignorance about the investment in mutual fund.
At the same time, the assessee requisitioned details of the bank account from which the transaction had been made and also the details of Mutual Fund so that necessary action could be taken.
Assessing Officer has observed in the assessment order that copy of reasons recorded u/s 148 were provided to AR of the assessee immediately and case was adjourned to 11.11.2016. The Assessee does not dispute said observations.
On 11.11.2016, AR for the assessee requested for further details by pleading as under:
"As we have received the reason for the assessment proceedings for the A.Y.
2009-10. In this matter as per our reply dated 24.10.2016. Assessee is unaware of such investment in Mutual fund of Rs. 24.40 lacs from her bank or De-mat account, we request your good self to kindly provide the complete details of such investment alongwith the details of bank or de-mate account, from which transaction had been done by the assessee.
8
Sir, These details are very much required as assessee is doubtful of such transaction done by her. In order to verify the transaction, we require these details."
In response to her application, copy of AIR was provided to the Assessee, through her AR, and case was adjourned to 15.11.2016. This fact is also not being disputed on behalf of the assessee. 14. Then, the assessee requested for adjournment on the ground that she being resident of Jhunjhunu, it was difficult for her to travel upto Jaipur continuously. She also pleaded that she was awaiting response from Karvey Computershare Pvt. Ltd. to her letter.
Then the proceedings were adjourned to 22.11.2016 and 5.12.2016. 15. It is in the assessment order that the office of Assessing Officer also took steps to collect information from M/s J.M. Financial Mutual Funds
Mumbai and Karvy Computershare Private Limited, Kolkata . In this regard, notices u/s 133(6) were issued.
In this regard, the Assessing Officer made following observations:
“During the year under consideration source of income of the assessee is interest income. In this case as per AIR Information assessee invested Rs. 24,40,000/- on 23.9.2008 in units of mutual fund filer Branch name of M/s Karvey Computershare Private
Limited, Kolkata West Bengal, Filer TAN MUMJ09448A Filer name M/s JM Financial
Mutual Fund, 5th floor, Apeejay House, 3 Dinshaw Vachha Road, Near KC College,
Churchgate, Mumbai.
In view of above, as no details has been furnished by the assessee despite providing ample opportunities to her. You have failed to discharge your onus of providing the documents, details and information, I therefore propose to add Rs. 24,40,000/- in your returned income as undisclosed income from other sources. Hence you are hereby show cause as to why your income should not be calculated as under :-
Returned Income
Rs. 73,480/-
Add:-As discussed above undisclosed Income
Rs. 24,40,000/-
Total Income
Rs. 25,13,480/-
In this context, you are requested to furnish your reply along with supporting evidence if any to this office on or before 26.12.2016. A formal
10
Premlata Tibrewala vs. ITO notice u/s 142(1) is enclosed herewith for ready reference. If you fail to avail this opportunity, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this regard and assessment shall be finalized as per material available on records. Failing which your case will be decided u/s 144 of the IT Act,
1961."
From the responses of the assessee submitted to the Assessing Officer submitted from time to time, it transpires that she pleaded before him that she had never invested any amount, as was mentioned in the notice, towards Mutual Funds. She also claimed that she was maintaining only one account with State Bank of Bikaner. Copy of her pass book was also produced by her by way of an Annexure-1. 18. Ld. AR for the assessee has referred to copy of reply dated 18.10.2016 submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer, enclosing therewith copy of original pass book, bank ledger and narration to support her claim that she had only one bank account and that no investment was made by her in any such mutual fund.
As is available from the assessment order, copy of AIR was provided to the assessee but, the assessee, while filing written reply, sought
11
Premlata Tibrewala vs. ITO adjournment. Accordingly, proceedings were adjourned to 22.11.2016 and then to 05.12.2016. 20. It is available from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had called for information by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to M/s J. M.
At page 15 of the paper book, copy of the affidavit of the assessee is available. Although, this is not exact orof the affidavit and it cannot be made out from said copy as to on which date it was executed, from the assessment order it transpires that said affidavit was furnished on 14.12.2016. As per said affidavit, the assessee testified that to the best of her knowledge, no such transaction was made in her saving bank account; that she did not have any Demat account operated through Karvy
Computershare Pvt. Ltd.; that as available from the reply from the said company, address mentioned in the AIR, was not her residential address; and that even PAN mentioned therein was not her PAN.
This goes to show that the assessee had response from the abovesaid company. But, said response from the said company does not form part even of the paper book submitted by the assessee before us.
21. At page 23 of the paper book is available from copy of complaint submitted by the assessee to the Station House Officer, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan, wherein she requested for registration of a case as her PAN
13
Premlata Tibrewala vs. ITO number appeared to have been misused for transfer of Rs. 24,40,000/- on 23.09.2008; that the said amount did not belong to her; and further that she had only one bank account with State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur.
24. As a result, this appeal is disposed of and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for effective adjudication of the appeal afresh having regard to the observations made hereinbefore. Of course, reasonable opportunity of being heard to be granted to the assessee- appellant.
File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/04/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 09/04/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Premlata Tibrewala, Jhunjhunu
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4(3), Jaipur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1489/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत