Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.17.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2013-14.
The only issues raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,88,56,000/- as made by the AO under section 69 of the Act towards the investment made by the assessee in her name.
The facts in brief are that the AO observed from the AIR information that assessee has made investment in immovable
2 Mrs. Sujata Ravi Punja properties during the financial year by investing Rs.1,81,06,000/- and Rs.1,01,06,000/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The AO in order to verify the veracity of the transactions also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act on 18.11.2016 to sub registrar, grade-I, Satara which was replied by letter dated 27.11.2015 submitting the copies of relevant registered documents which state that assessee had purchased immovable property at Satara. However, assessee denied to have entered into any such purchase of immovable properties by filing affidavit denying the transactions. Assessee also stated that a legal action has been initiated against the person who has committed fraud by purchasing the properties in the name of the assessee. The assessee alleged that she was a victim of fraud by some unscrupulous people in collusion with PNB bank personnel. The AO, however, by rejecting the contentions and submissions of the assessee made an addition of Rs.1,88,56,000/- under section 69 of the Act which was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. Now the assessee has filed some additional evidences vide letter dated 16.07.2019 copies of the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sewri, Mumbai, consequent and English translation of both the documents with the prayers for admission of the same.
The Ld. Counsel, at the outset, submitted that the order has been passed by magistrate in CC No.26/SW/2017 dated 22.05.2017 holding that there was substance in the allegations of the assessee with respect to cheating, forgery and misappropriation and directed the Pydhonie police station to 3 Mrs. Sujata Ravi Punja treat the complaint as FIR and investigate the complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sewri, Mumbai. The Ld. Counsel also filed copy of FIR dated 16.06.2017 placed at page No.572 and letter dated 07.01.2018 placed in the paper book page no. 573 and English translation is placed at Page Nos.574 to 590. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the ld CIT(A) not wait for the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and passed the order in a hurried manner. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid evidences have substantial bearing on the adjudication of the case of the assessee which was clearly held to be a case of fraud committed on the assessee by unscrupulous and anti social elements in collusion with PNB Bank people and prayed that the same may be admitted as additional evidences having strong bearing qua the case before the Hon’ble Bench. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the AO to decide the case of the assessee afresh in the light of the aforesaid additional evidences such as order of the magistrate dated 22.05.2017 and FIR dated 16.07.2017.
The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that in this case post passing of order by Ld. CIT(A) an order has been passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.05.2017 wherein it has been held that some unscrupulous people have perpetrated a fraud on the assessee by purchasing the 4 Mrs. Sujata Ravi Punja properties in the name of the assessee and directed the police to investigate the matter further and consequently the FIR has also been registered, copy of which is placed at page No.570 to 572. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that additional evidences filed by the assessee have strong bearing on the outcome of the case as all these developments have taken place after the order passed by the lower authorities. We, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the case of the assessee after considering the aforesaid evidences and after affording the reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2019.