INDERJEET KAUR BHATIA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI

In response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,94,220/-. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that she was suffering for bread and butter for herself and her family, and could not have purchased immovable properties of such huge amount.

The Assessing Officer observed that the immovable property purchased by the assessee was sold subsequently and capital gain was also disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5,36,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 143(b) & 144B of the Act creating a demand of Rs. 8,48,82,300/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the order of the Assessing Officer.

Now the assessee is aggrieved further and has come in appeal before us.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee has not purchased any immovable property in the instant year and yet the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of AIR information received. The assessee submitted that the assessee had only sold an immoveable property at Mansarovar Garden, House No. G-16, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/- during the instant year and the capital gain on the same was also disclosed in the Income tax Return. It was argued that the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry in respect of the AIR information as no property was purchased during the year.

The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that the ld. CIT(A) has mistakenly passed the order considering that the assessee has availed the facility of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for the said demand raised in the assessment proceedings, whereas the assessee has not availed any such facility.

It was submitted that the assessee had availed the facility of VSVS against the order of penalty u/s 271D of the Act in contravention of section 269SS of the Act for the A.Y 2017-18 which the ld. CIT(A) mistakenly understood as pertaining to the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2017-18.

Per contra, the ld. DR fairly conceded that the ld. CIT(A) has based his order on wrong facts. He contended that the Assessing Officer had given sufficient time to the assessee which was not availed by the assessee. On the last date of hearing before the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed cryptic reply denying the ownership of property.

We have heard the rival contentions and have perused the relevant material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has not examined the facts of the case thoroughly and the ld. CIT(A)’s order is based on mistaken facts. We are of the considered view that the issue needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer in respect of purchase of properties vis a vis the AIR information received. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification as discussed above.

The Assessing Officer is directed to enquire from the Office of the Registrar and the deed of sale/purchase of the said properties as well as Form 26AS of the assessee whether the assessee had indeed purchased these properties. The verification/examination is evidently necessitated by the JCIT order u/s 271D of the Act for A.Y 2017-18 in the assessee’s own case who held that the property at Mansarovar Garden, House No./ G-16. New Delhi was sold and not purchased as held by the Assessing Officer.

The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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