HANSIKA P. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16 (1)(2), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case as emanating from the documents on record are: The assessee has filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year on 11/07/2008 declaring total income of Rs.1,43,100/-. The same was processed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The assessment was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30/03/2015. In reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.77,29,688/-. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 23/03/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing addition on merits, as well as challenging validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee in toto and upheld the additions. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.

Shri Jitendra Singh appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs.77,29,688/- was made by Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to show source of funds. The assessee in order to substantiate source of funds had furnished documents before the Assessing Officer. The assessee had furnished relevant documents on 26/03/2016, however, the Assessing Officer had already passed the order on 23/03/2016. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to consider those documents. The assessee, thereafter, in first appellate proceedings furnished the same set of documents before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without considering the same, in a mechanical manner dismissed the appeal of assessee.

Per contra, Shri Drop Singh Meena, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative asserted that the documents filed by the assessee are merely receipts indicating sale of jewellery. There is no document on record, that would show that the assessee had acquired jewellery by way of inheritance. The ld.Departmental Representative contended that no purpose would be served by re-examining documents as the CIT(A) has already considered the same and has passed a speaking order.

Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to produce any evidence, whatsoever before the Assessing Officer to substantiate that the jewellery sold by the assessee was acquired by way of inheritance. The assessee, purportedly furnished the documents before Assessing Officer , copies of which have been filed before us by way of paper book after the passing of assessment order. From perusal of the impugned order it is not emanating that the CIT(A) had considered the same. However, we observe that in Para 8.2 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) has referred to the order sheet entry dated 14/11/2018, wherein the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee has admitted that there is no evidence in possession of the assessee appellant to prove that ancestral jewellery was in possession of the assessee.

Taking into consideration entirety of facts, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for examining the documents filed before us in the form of paper book containing 54 pages. The CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law before final disposal of the appeal.

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.