GAGANDEEP KAUR NAGI,SONARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

The NFAC/CIT(A) on the other hand observed that the assessee had not filed return of income and as per Section 249 (4)(b) of the Act the assessee is mandatorily required to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him in order to get his appeal admitted. Since this compliance was not done by the assessee, the NFAC/CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not admitted.

I have heard the rival submissions of the parties herein, have carefully considered the documents on record and have analysed the facts P a g e 2 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18 and circumstances in this case. The assessee has admitted to have paid the sale consideration for purchase of the that flat, to Md. Sohail Akhtar for Rs. 32,00,000/-. Along with this reply the assessee had enclosed bank account details and loan documents. The AO however found only the bank account details as per which only Rs. 20,00,000/- have been paid to Md. Sohail Akhtar. Accordingly, the balance amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- was added u/s 69 of the Act as undisclosed investment. Similarly the difference of stamp duty value and the purchase value i.e. Rs.27,26,800/- was also added u/s 56 (2) (viib) of the Act is income from other sources. It is noted that this reply of the assessee was submitted to the Department on 28.03.22. It is also noted that the AO in the assessment order states that since this was a time barring matter on 31.03.22, the assessment was completed based on materials available on record and order passed on 30.03.22. Therefore, within only two days from receipt of reply from the assessee, the assessment was completed. The ld. DR could not refute these facts on record. Per Contra ld. AR vehemently challenged the validity of the additions made in this case. He submitted that the assessment was completed on a summary basis without conducting adequate enquiry regarding the facts of the case. That even the principles of natural justice had been violated since without adequate opportunity of hearing the additions were made and the NFAC/CIT(A) had not admitted the appeal invoking Section 249(4)(b) of the Act when the truth remains that assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax since the additions itself are arbitrary and bad in law.

Analysing the entire ambit of the existing facts I am of the considered view that the substantiative rights and liabilities of the parties herein are yet to be adjudicated at the level of the AO. The matter being time barring the assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022 and therefore necessary factual enquiry were left to be completed. The loan papers were not found by the AO, which could have been called again, in this regard necessary hearing should have been provided to the assessee. When the very basis of the additions are doubt full, when the taxable liability of the assessee is not certain, at this stage it cannot be said P a g e 3 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18 therefore, whether sec 249(4)(b) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee. Balancing the scales of Justice, I set aside the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice.

As per the above terms the grounds of appeal

The Appellant : Gagandeep Kaur Nagi, Flat no. B, Block no. 5A, Mahananda Apartment. Jharkhand 2.The Respondent:, ITO, Ward-1(1). Jharkhand 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT,Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, By order 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi P a g e 4 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 10.07.2024 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 12.7.24 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the AM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second AM Member.