KUNAPAREDDY SUJATHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17, leading to an ex-parte assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144B. The Assessing Officer made additions for the difference between property stamp duty value and consideration paid (Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i)) and unexplained stamp duty/registration charges (Section 69C). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, rejecting additional evidence due to lack of a formal petition.
Held
The Tribunal admitted the additional judicial documents, subject to a payment, noting that they were crucial to the case and their admission would not prejudice the Revenue. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with directions to consider these documents and pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee due opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage, specifically judicial documents not presented to the Assessing Officer. 2. Validity of an ex-parte assessment, including additions made under Section 56(2) and Section 69C, without considering crucial evidence.
Sections Cited
139, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 144, 144B, 56(2)(vii)(b)(i), 69C, 271(1)(c), 271B, 271F, 271(1)(b), Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.444/VIZ/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. PAN : AKFPK1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri GVN Hari, AR. Revenue by: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR. Date of hearing: 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.01.2025
O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
2 ITA No.444/Viz/2024
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessing officer was justified in completing the assessment even without issuing a draft order as stipulated in the provisions of the Act relating to faceless assessment.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additional evidence under the erroneous belief that the appellant did not file any accompanying petition for admission of additional evidence.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.56,92,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 56(2) (viib) of the Act towards difference between SRO value and actual consideration paid for purchase of immovable property.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.4,50,350 made by the assessing officer u/s 69C of the Act towards alleged unexplained payment of stamp duty and registration charges.”
The brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file her return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on 29.03.2021 was issued. In response, assessee filed return of income on 31.05.2021 declaring income of Rs.5,62,980/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15.06.2021 by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1)
3 ITA No.444/Viz/2024
were issued on 19.12.2021, 30.12.2021 and 10.01.2022 and was requested to furnish documents as called for. However, the assessee did not make any compliance to the notices issued and hence, Assessing Officer has decided the proceedings as exparte on the basis of material available on record. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs.3,10,000, whereas its stamp duty value was Rs. 60,02,000/-, resulting in an addition of Rs.56,92,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Additionally, an expenditure of Rs.4,50,350/- on stamp duty and registration charges was treated as unexplained under Section 69C. Various penalty proceedings were initiated, including under Sections 271(1)(c), 271B, 271F, and 271(1)(b), for alleged concealment of income, failure to comply with notices, delayed filing of returns, and failure to get accounts audited. Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs. 67,05,330/- leading to a demand of Rs. 41,25,627/- and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dt.10.02.2022.
Aggrieved with such assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.
4 ITA No.444/Viz/2024
Before us, at the outset, ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed an application for the admission of additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) at the appellate stage, as the assessee was ex parte before the Assessing Officer. The ld.AR has drawn our attention to para 5.3.1 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), wherein the Ld.CIT(A), after discussing various decisions, dismissed the application for admission of additional evidence. It was submitted that the additional documents furnished by the assessee were (1) Copy of Special Power Attorney dt.19.06.2013, (2) Copy of judgment dt.22.11.2012 in O.S.No.829/2012 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, (3) Copy of order dt.24.06.2005 in W.P.No.18134/2015 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and (4) Copy of Sale deed No.5558/2015 in favour of assessee executed on 19.06.2013. It was further submitted that these documents, being judicial documents, would go to the root of the issue and are crucial for deciding the matter under appeal. Therefore, it was contended that these documents should be admitted.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee should have been vigilant and ought to have filed the same before the Assessing Officer.
5 ITA No.444/Viz/2024
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the present case, the documents filed before us and also before the Ld.CIT(A). However, the LD.CIT(A) has not accepted the additional documents filed before him, as the assessee had furnished those documents without an accompanying petition as per Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. After perusing the additional documents filed by the assessee before us, we are of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if these documents are admitted, and the case is decided after considering them. In view of the above, and more particularly, as these documents go to the root of the matter and were not produced before the Assessing Officer earlier, we admit the additional documents filed before us, subject to the payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund by the assessee within one month from the date of passing of this order.
Further, since we have admitted the additional documents filed before us, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider these documents and thereafter, pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on the date of hearing fixed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
6 ITA No.444/Viz/2024
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- d/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (BALAKRISHNAN S.) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Visakhapatnam, dated 22.01.2025. TYNM/sps
Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Shop No.9 & 10, Ballemvari Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Vijayawada. 3 Prl.CIT, Visakhapatnam 7 DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench. 8 Guard File By Order
