Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee acquired immovable property for Rs. 59,87,300/- in FY 2010-11 without filing a return. The AO believed income had escaped assessment and issued notices under various sections, including 148, 143(2), and 142(1). As the assessee did not comply, the AO invoked section 144 and made an addition of Rs. 59,87,300/-, later confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action without considering the evidence of a housing loan from HDFC Ltd. and bank payments supporting the property purchase. The Tribunal found that evidence plays a crucial role and to meet the ends of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 59,87,300/- and disallowing the deletion of interest under sections 234A and 234B without properly considering the evidence of housing loan and bank payments.
Sections Cited
144, 250, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI MS. PADMAVATHY S
ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT (A) Mumbai passed u/sec 144 and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A ought to have held that the re-opening of assessment is bad in law.
2 (A.Y.: 2010-11) Ryan Louis Dcunha. Mumbai 2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of Rs.59,87,300/- as undisclosed income. 3. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A ought to have deleted interest of Rs. 1,40,096/- u/s 234A and Rs. 16,28,616/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal
.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer (A.O) has received the information as per the ITD system that, the assessee has acquired immovable property for a consideration of Rs.59,87,300/- during the F.Y 2010-11 and the assessee has not filed the return of income. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and the AO has also issued notice u/se 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act. Since there was no compliance to the notices, and the assessee could not substantiate with the material information in support of sources. The A,O considering the information available on record, has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 59,87,300/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2017.
3.Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but confirmed the action of the AO and
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the evidences of Housing Loan from HDFC Ltd and bank account payments supporting the purchase of the property and has erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. Further theLd.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the case with evidences and information before the lower authorities and relied on the factual paper book. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld. AR that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the written submissions filed along with evidences in support of acquisition of property with the Housing Loan sanctioned by the HDFC Ltd and bank payments from the asssesse accounts. The contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee has purchased the property from Housing loan from HDFC Ltd and out of personal savings from salary income. We find the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences played vital role in decision making . Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, 4 (A.Y.: 2010-11) Ryan Louis Dcunha. Mumbai we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the entire disputed issues along with the evidences to the file of the assessing officer to decide afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2024.