DILEEP KUMAR DWIVEDI,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected u/s 148 of the Act for purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.54,48,060/- in assessment year 2015-16 and TDS statement of payment of consideration for immovable property u/s 194(1A) of Rs.33,47,450/-. The assessee neither filed ITR in response to notice u/s 148 nor submitted any details in response to notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. The details of opportunities given are as under:- Type of notice/ Communication Date of notice/ communication Date of compliance given Response of the assessee received/ not received

On completion of proceedings, the ld. AO, vide order dated 21.12.2024, made additions of rs.54,48,060/- or TDS payment of Rs.33,47,450/-.

Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee has preferred the present appeal with the following grounds:- 3

That the LD. AO has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case by ignoring the documents filed by the Appellant as additional evidence and admitted by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon'ble DRP’) at the time of issuing the directions u/s 144C(13) to the Ld. AO.

That the Hon'ble DRP has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case where it has admitted that the source of the investment in the registered property of Rs. 54,48,060/- has been explained and the payment during the year consideration has been made for the said property amounting to Rs. 33,47,450/-, however, it has mentioned at the same time that the Assessee has not filed the requisite documents to prove its intention.

That the Ld. AO has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case by ignoring the directions of the Hon’ble DRP to take note of the documents filed by the Assessee and pass a speaking order in this regard.

That the Ld. AO has further erred in calculating and levying interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, and u/s 234C of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case.

Through an application dated 06.10.2025, the appellant sought admission of the following additional grounds:- “6.1 “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed is void ab initio as the same is without juri iction. The notice issued u/s 148, dated 11.04.2022 was beyond 3 years from the end of the AY 2015-16 even though the income escaped assessment does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs or more. No notice u/s 148 can be 4

2 “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed is void ab initio as the same is without juri iction. The order passed u/s 148A(d) and further the notice issued u/s 148 is based on the borrowing satisfaction and no independent inquiry was made by the Ld. AO.”

The ld. AR, at the time of hearing, did not press the additional grounds. The ld. AR for the appellant-assessee submitted that the ld. AO failed to appreciate that the assessee filed additional evidence which was admitted by the DRP at the time of issuing directions. The source of investment in property of Rs.54,48,060/- had been sufficiently explained and the payment during the year was made in sum of Rs.33,47,450/-. The ld. AO passed the impugned order ignoring the directions of the DRP.

The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Ld. AO.

From examination of the record in the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that the assessee is a non-resident and citizen of the United States. The assessee never provided any service in India in the AY 2015- 16. The ld. AO despite referring to the directions of the DRP regarding deletion, made additions of Rs.54,48,060/- or Rs.33,47,450/- for the reason that requisite documents did not prove the contention of the assessee. 5

In view of the above material facts, especially reconciliation of amount having paid through bank accounts maintained by the assessee in the State Bank of India in the United States and in Ahmedabad Branch, loan from HDFC Bank and repayment of loan instalments by the assessee from his SBI NRE account, the addition made by the ld. AO being not just, fair, reasonable, legal are set aside. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 5 are allowed. The additional grounds of appeal 6.1 and 6.2 being not pressed are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.