MRS. LALITA KAUTIYAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

ORDER

Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member:

This appeal is directed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT, Haldwani dated 26.08.2013 passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-19, whereby the ld.CIT directed the Assessing Officer to issue the notice of demand and challan after considering the credit entries of Rs.8,00,000/- & Rs.6,47,500/- in the bank account of assessee as unexplained and also Rs.2,06,000/- as unexplained expenditure incurred towards purchase of immovable property. By way of various grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the above three additions made by ld. CIT vide impugned order, considering the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

2. The brief facts of the case are that assessment order of the assessee was made on 28.12.2011 u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the information that the assessee had invested Rs.32,00000/- in purchase of property. The explanation of the assessee as to the source of this investment, inasmuch as, Rs.24,00,000/- invested out of loan taken from Uttaranchal Gramin Bank Dharchula and remaining Rs.8,00,000/- out of past savings, was accepted by AO as both these investments were found supported from bank statements. Subsequently, the ld. CIT issued notice u/s. 263 to the assessee, as it revealed from the record that the AO has not examined the source of Rs.6,47,500/- & Rs.8,00,000/- deposited in Bank account on 29.07.2008 and on 13.01.2009 respectively and also failed to examine the source of Rs.2,06,000/- incurred towards stamp duty and other expenses in the purchase of immovable property. Since, the assessee did not appear in proceedings u/s. 263, the ld. CIT proposed to make the above additions and directed the AO accordingly vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.