Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee had not filed an income tax return for AY 2013-14. The Department, based on information of property purchase, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B. An addition of Rs. 17,26,979/- was made as unexplained money. The assessee's legal heir argued lack of communication due to the assessee's death and requested a remand for proper opportunity.
Held
The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before the lower authorities and, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and conducted, and whether the addition of Rs. 17,26,979/- as unexplained money was justified.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 139, 148, 69A, 250, 251, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 05.10.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 24.09.2021. 1. 1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 121 days. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. After perusing I.T.A. No.: 354/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashutosh Verma (Legal heir of Late Sunaina Devi). the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory the time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the validity of reopening proceedings u/s 147/144/144B which is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the validity of reopening proceedings in spite of the fact that the purported sanction u/s 151 was not obtained or was not in accordance with law which vitiated the reopening process.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the entire reassessment proceedings since the same was initiated in the name of a dead person.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,26,979/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged unexplained money by invoking the provisions of sec. 69A of the Act.
The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income u/s 139 of the Act and as per the information available with the Department, the assessee had purchased immovable property for ₹17,26,797/- during the FY 2012-13. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued which was not complied with nor subsequent notices were complied with and, therefore, the assessment was made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at the total income of ₹17,26,979/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before I.T.A. No.: 354/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashutosh Verma (Legal heir of Late Sunaina Devi). the Ld. CIT(A) who held that the burden was on the assessee to prove the nature and source of the income and since the assessee completely failed to offer any explanation before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') during the assessment proceedings despite affording sufficient number of opportunities and during the appellate proceedings, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions filed by the assessee were very general in nature, the appeal was dismissed by holding as under: “7.10 Having considered entire facts of the case, and the case laws cited above, it is apparent that the appellant has completely failed to offer any explanation before the AO during assessment proceedings despite affording sufficient number of opportunities. During the appellate proceedings, Statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions filed by the appellant are very general in nature. The only submission made by the appellant is that the companies, Shree Shiromani Project Private Ltd. & Amritvani Sales Private Limited are active companies and have done their annual filing with