Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 14.07.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 was not justified in allowing the addition of Rs.1,75,000/- on account of unexplained investment made in purchasing property at Laldora of Mundaka Village, New Delhi. The Source was cash received from sale of Jewellery on 4/10/2006 for Rs.2 Lakh, the confirmation of which has been filed us the jewellery before the AO in the remand proceedings.
2. As regards payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- the addition was confirmed by the commissioner of income tax (Appeals)- 18, he was not able to co-relate the payment with source of sale of jewellery on 04/10/2006 for Rs. 2 lakh.
Neera Mahajan 3. Payment could not be co-related as infect actual payment of Rs. 1,75,000 was not made in the year 2006- 07 but on 20/09/2010. The draft copy was not available with us so be requested Debts recovery tribunal for the copy of same since the case was very old they could not locate the copy of the draft but have given a certificate that P.O. for sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid on 28/09/2010. (COPY ENCLOSED) 4. Since the payment does not relate to A.Y. 2008-09 the same could not be added in that year. The above payment was in-fact made from past savings and declared income.
The assessee was not given proper opportunity to explain the source of investment.
Assessee unnecessary suffered harassment and mental torched and she had to come specially from USA. In view of above submissions, your good self is requested to kindly delete the addition of Rs.1,75,000/- made u/s 144 of I.T. Act.”
From the above grounds, it would be clear that the only grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs.1,75,000/- made by the AO.
Facts of the case in brief are that the AO received an information that the assessee had purchased a plot of land measuring 450 Sq. Yards situated at Lal Dora of Village Mundaka, New Delhi on 18.07.2007 in execution of recovery certificate No. 090/2004 in Canara Bank Vs Ratna Trading Links & Others. The source of purchase was explained as under: Amount Source explained by Ms. Remarks of ITO(Inv.) unit-2 Neera Mahajan Malik 3,23,000/- Sale of Jewellery No evidence of sale of jewellery provided 4,25,000/- Out of sale proceeds of No documentary evidence maturity of Rs. 7,30,9307- furnished. Moreover the return of the relevant A.Y. 2008-09 shows the sale of UTI mutual funds in which the assessee incurred a loss of Rs. 37,204/- instead of sale of ICICI Prudential as claimed by the assessee. 1,75,000/- Sale proceeds of jewellery No evidence filed. Paintings. 70,000/- Refund of amount paid to No supporting evidence filed. Sona Farms on 10.12.2005 for booking of Farm. 8,80,000/- Refund of amount paid to No supporting evidence filed. Sona Farms on 10.12.2005 for booking of Farm.
5. The AO, however, passed the ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and made the addition of Rs.18,75,000/-.
6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition of Rs.1,75,000/- by observing that the payments for acquisition of the plot had been partly explained and that he was not satisfied with the explanation relating to the payment of Rs.1,75,000/-.
Now the assessee is in appeal. During the course of hearing, the assessee was present and pleaded that the sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid on 28.09.2010. She furnished a certificate dated 30.12.2017 issued by Section Officer, DRT-II, Delhi. She submitted that the said certificate was not available earlier and requested to admit the same as on additional evidence. It was submitted that the property in question was purchased in auction
Neera Mahajan but the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- could not be deposited at that time. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly mentioned that the payment was made on 21.09.2007. It was stated that the assessee had the proper & plausible explanation for making the aforesaid payment. She also submitted that when the then AO framed the assessment ex-parte, she was not in India, therefore, could not represent her case. She requested to remand the matter back to the file of the AO, so that proper explanation may be given for the deposit of Rs.1,75,000/-.
In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee was unable to explain the source for making the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the addition was rightly sustained by the ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the letter dated 30.12.2017 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi was not furnished either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A), since the said letter was not available to the assessee. In the said certificate/letter, it is mentioned that DD No. 4166 dated 28.09.2010 for Rs.1,75,000/- was submitted before the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the assessee made the payments vide DD No. 4166 dated 28.09.2010 for Rs.1,75,000/-, the said date does not fall in the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2008-09. So, the facts are not Neera Mahajan clear as to whether the sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid by the assessee in the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration or on a subsequent date. I, therefore, considering the totality of the facts, deem it appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of the AO to be decided only on this limited issue relating to the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/06/2018)