SANGEETA SUNIL KADOO,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 235/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 February 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee invited attention to page 68 of the Paper Book, which indicated that an investment was made in AY 2013-14, leading to the deletion of the investment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Regarding the investment in property amounting to Rs. 40,95,000/-, the Tribunal observed that AIR information indicated a property purchase on 27.08.2012 for Rs. 40,95,000/-. The assessee had stated that she had not purchased any immovable property during FY 2012-13. The AR submitted that the sale deed was for Rs. 35,00,000/-, a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- was availed, and the balance Rs. 15,00,000/- could be ascribed to past savings, which was considered a reasonable explanation. The Senior Departmental Representative failed to controvert this documentary evidence, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee had successfully dislodged the basis for the addition of Rs. 40,95,000/-. The AR also fairly submitted that other technical grounds were not pressed as relief was obtained on merits. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sangeeta Sunil Kadoo, filed an appeal against the order dated 21/02/2024 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal challenges the initiation and conduct of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order. The assessee contends that the reassessment proceedings were initiated improperly, lacked proper notice, and that the transactions in question pertained to AY 2012-13, not AY 2013-14. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) denied an adequate opportunity to present submissions and relied selectively on documents, leading to a twisted presentation of facts. The dispute involves alleged investments of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 40,95,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and the manner thereof were appropriate and valid in law, considering the alleged lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard and the absence of specific reasons in the notice for reopening the assessment? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148). 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the purported transactions, assessed for AY 2013-14, actually pertained to AY 2012-13 (FY 2011-12)? (Question of law and fact). 3. Whether the issuance of two notices for the same assessment year, one for Rs. 10,00,000/- and another for Rs. 40,95,000/-, indicated a predetermined mindset and was improper, thereby rendering the proceedings bad in law? (Question of law and fact). 4. Whether the order of the CIT(A) was bad in law for defying the principles of natural justice by denying the assessee an appropriate opportunity for submission, passing an order based on a partial response? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated improperly, without proper notice and opportunity to be heard. The transactions in dispute belonged to AY 2012-13, not AY 2013-14. The issuance of multiple notices for the same year showed a predetermined mindset. The CIT(A) denied natural justice by passing an order based on partial submissions and selectively relied on documents, ignoring vital facts. The assessee also argued that the order burdened them to provide non-existent documents and denied submissions made. The assessee later stated they were not pressing other technical grounds as relief was granted on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative failed to controvert the documentary evidence presented by the assessee regarding the Rs. 40,95,000/- addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kher, CA
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21/02/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short, “ld. CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013–14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“I. The initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148, entire process and its manner are inappropriate and bad in eyes of law. - Assessee was not given opportunity of being heard before order u/s 148 for reopening of assessment was passed. As also the order u/s 148, that was given to assessee, did not specifically mention the reasons for reopening of assessment.

II. The reassessment proceeding is bad in law, as the purported transactions do not pertain to the relevant assessment year – The transactions that are referred to and are assessed for AY 2013-14, do not pertain to that year. In fact they pertain to AY 2012-13 i.e. FY 2011-12.

III. The manner and Issues of 2 notices for the same assessment year is improper and shows predetermined mind set and therefore bad in eyes of law–One notice U/s 142 (1) was issued on 25.09-2020 which had a mention of transaction worth Rs. 10,00,000/- The assessee duly responded the same on 12.10.2020. Another Notice for another transaction of Rs.40,95,000/- was issued on 01.09.2021 (after response for all previous notices were filed by the assessee) This is nothing but afterthought and was done just to ensure that monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- be justified for reopening assessment U/s 148, without getting time barred.

IV. The order by Hon,ble CIT(Appeal) is bad in the eyes of law as it defied the principle natural justice by denying appropriate opportunity to assessee for her submission – Partial response was filed by the assessee vide ack no. 111444871130224 on 13.02.2024. Without waiting for further submission of the assessee, order was passed fully keeping aside principle of natural justice and depriving assessee of making final submission.

V. The order burdens assessee to provide non-existent documents– The order by CIT(Appeal) observes that assessee had not submitted documents regarding investments of Rs. 10,00,000/- in AY 2013-14. In fact such transaction never took place in that A.Y. Therefore asking those documents is like asking proof of an event which never took place.

VI. The order seeks to deny submission of documents made by the assessee - During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had made submission about investment of Rs. 10,00,000/- made in the FY 2011-12. Further bank details of FY 2012-13 were also submitted. The order has denied the same.

VII. The order has placed selective reliance on the documents and deliberately ignored vital facts mentioned in the same documents, that the order is relied upon, that resulted in presentation twisted facts –Transaction of investment of Rs. 40.95 Lakh was assessed on the basis of sale deed The same document has a mention of agreement to sale which took place in F.Y. 2011-12. The order selectively ignored this important fact. The order is passed as if no details about registered agreement to sale are provided

VIII. The order seeks to repeat observations made in first assessment order without applying judicial neutral mind, by ignoring facts of the case and submissions made by assessee - Without going into facts of the case, appeal order has followed same mind-set, as are mentioned in original assessment order, by faulting assessee of not providing documents and information. This is despite the fact that most of the submissions of assessee are self- explanatory and prove that purported transaction do not pertain to AY 2013-14.

IX. The order is predetermine and passed in haste with specific intention to deny genuine relief to assessee –The order is passed without giving opportunity for submission to assessee, on the basis of "Partial Response". It clearly shows predetermined intent of denying justice to assessee. ” 2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee invited our attention to page. 68 of the Paper Book which is reproduced below:

3.

It is evident that investment was made in A.Y. 2013–14.

Accordingly assessee is successful in deletion of investment of `.

10,00,000/–.

4.

As regards investment in property, it is pertinent that “during the course of assessment, it is noted that a AIR information having transaction code-06 purchase of property, transaction date of 27.08.2012 and transaction amount equal to Rs. 40,95,000/- is available on ITBA system. To furnish the details of such transaction, opportunities is given to the assessee vide notices issued u/s 142(1) and show–cause notice u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and assessee is required to furnish details of immovable and movable properties purchased/sold/held by the assessee during the Financial Year 2012-

13.

In response, the assessee stated that she had not purchased/sold any immovable property during F.Y. 2012-13. In this regards, notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been issued to SUB REGISTRAR NO 5/ NAGPUR CITY on 02.09.2021 for verification of information. Reply of the same is still awaiting.”

5.

The ld. AR vehemently submitted that sale–deed executed is only of `. 35,00,000/–. He has also availed loan of `. 20,00,000/– from State Bank of India. The balance sum of `. 15,00,000/– can be ascribed to her past savings. The explanation is reasonable and may be accepted.

6.

The ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) failed to controvert the documentary evidence. Thus, assessee has successfully dislodged the basis of addition of `. 40,95,000/–.

7.

The ld. AR fairly submitted that he is not pressing other technical grounds. Since he has got relief on merits.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/02/2026

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →