NEHA GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1960/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2018AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish evidence, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on AIR information regarding the purchase of immovable property. The assessee did not reply to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) restricted the addition after finding the assessee's share was 1/7th instead of 1/6th.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained investment in property was justified, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices due to change of address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv
Hearing: 30.08.2018Pronounced: 31.08.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Meerut dated 09.01.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The sole grievance raised by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,92,657/-.

3.

The assessee alleges that the assessment order framed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was ex-parte and the order was passed u/s 144 of the Act.

4.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as per the AIR information, the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has purchased immovable property on 13.2.2008 for a consideration of 63.85 lakhs. On the basis of the AIR information, letter was sent to the assessee, but no reply was received by the Assessing Officer.

5.

As per the details available in the sale deed, the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has 1/6th share and, accordingly, made addition of Rs. 11,54,933/- as unexplained investment.

6.

The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and pointed out that after marriage, the address of the assessee has changed and, therefore, she could not comply with the letters/notices of the Assessing Officer. The assessee adduced evidences which were not accepted by the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee’s share in the said property was 1/7th and, accordingly, restricted the addition to Rs. 9,92,657/-.

7.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that after the marriage of the appellant lady, the address was changed and, therefore, notice could not be received by the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that if one more opportunity is given, necessary evidences will be filed.

8.

In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish evidences and comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2018.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →