SMT MEERA DEVI,AURAIYA vs. ITO1(1)(4), ETAWAH

1. The assessee has filed four appeals 3, 4 & 5/Agr/2024 pertaining to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. & 3/Agr/2024 for AY 2010-11 and ITA Nos. 4 & 5/Agr/2024 for AY 2011-12 are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, each dated 29.12.2022 passed in DIN and order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048319523(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048321433(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048320025(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2022-23/1048321571(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that the assessee has filed her instant twin quantum and penalty appeals each i.e.

& 3/Agr/2024 for AY 2010-11 and & 5/Agr/2024 for AY 2011-12, respectively against the learned lower authorities’ respective findings firstly section 148/147 proceedings claiming unexplained investments addition etc. and levied section 271(1)(c) with corresponding penalties; respectively.

The Revenue side is indeed very fair at the outset in making it clear that the assessee’s instant four appeals involve identical set of facts. That being the case, we notice from a perusal of the assessee “lead” appeal that the learned Assessing Officers had recorded his reopening reasons that the assessee’s taxable income (on proximation basis) had escaped assessment. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, 2010 (2) SCC 723.