REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

A.Y. 2009-10 Reena Verma Income Tax officer, C/o Shri Pawana Singh Ward 1(3)(5), Roorkee Khedi Kala, Mubaraqpur Vs. Laksar, Haridwar, Uttaranchal PAN: AGVPV0526B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2025 ORDER

PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM

“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the determination of Income of the appellant at Rs.17,57,185/- as against declared income of Rs.1,35,000/- in an order of assessment dated 28.12.2016 made under section 147/143(3) of the Act.

Reena Verma 2. That the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act without appreciating that, statutory pre-conditions for neither the initiation of proceedings and, nor the completion of assessment under the Act had been fulfilled and, therefore, the same were without jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. 2.2 That the both has failed to appreciate that there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a "reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 2.3 That initiation of proceedings was mechanical and without any application of mind much less independent application of mind, therefore the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was an invalid notice and assumption u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs.11,00,000/- representing alleged unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs.11,00,000/- representing sums received from Shri Raghuvir Singh as advance received against the share in agriculture land under agreement to sale and erroneously held as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3.2 That both the authority below while making and sustaining respectively the above addition has arbitrarily rejected the explanation tendered by the assessee and made the addition arbitrarily and mechanically on the basis of inadmissible evidences and therefore not sustainable. 3.3 That both the authority below while making and sustaining respectively the above addition ought to have examined the Shri Raghuvir Singh and witness Shri Nepal Singh and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh before rejecting the explanation tendered by the assesses and Reena Verma as such addition made by rely upon the statement of Shri Raghuvir Singh is wholly unjustified. 3.4 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, mere recording of statement of Shri Raghuvir Singh and, drawing adverse inference on basis thereof, neither in law and, nor in fact can be held to be a valid basis to suggest that opportunity had been granted to the assessee. 3.5 That authority below has gravely erred, both on fact and in law in relying on the aforesaid statement, without affording an opportunity of cross examination, and as such has violated the principal of natural justice.

Reena Verma 4.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that since the assessee does not maintain books of accounts, addition made and sustained by invoking section 69A of the Act is wholly illegal and untenable.

6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the levy of interest, which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case. It is therefore, prayed that, it be held that assessment made by the learned Income Tax Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be quashed and, further addition so upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed.” 2.1 In nutshell, the assessee has raised following issues before us: i. Reopening of the assessment, ii. Taxability of Rs.11,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act, iii. Taxability of Rs.5,22,185/- under section 69A of the Act iv. Chargeability of interest under the Act.

“13. Proceeding to the addition made by the AO of Rs. 11 lacs on account of advance stated to have been received from one Sh. Raghuveer Singh, it is seen that the AO has relied on documents submitted by the assessee herself. At para 6 of the assessment order, the AO has pointed out certain inaccuracies and other features of the documents produced by the assessee which create a doubt on their genuineness in the submissions filed by the appellant before the undersigned, this point raised by the AO has not been satisfactorily met. The appellant has mentioned that the genuineness of the stamp papers Issued for the agreement was verified by the A/o but it does not address the deficiencies that the AO has pointed out in these documents Therefore, the issue raised by the AD remains unrebutted by the assessee.

therefore fails.

15. The next point is the addition of Rs 5,22,185/- u/s 69A. This amount was claimed to be capital introduced against sale of agricultural produce The AO has held that the assessee has failed to show the genuineness of this agricultural income. In the submission made by the appellant before the undersigned, the appellant has not adduced any evidence except the revenue record to show that the assessee owns agricultural land. Owing agricultural land is one thing and earning income from it is another. I found that the assessee has been unable to discharge the onus to show that the agricultural land actually gave rise to the income of Rs. 5,22,185/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is sustained.”

4. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, we heard Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter, the ‘Sr. DR’). He requested for dismissal of the appeal and supported orders of lower authority.

5. First issue is in respect of reopening of the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue as under:

“12. The first ground taken by the appellant is that the proceedings u/s 148 taken up by the AO are without jurisdiction. This claim of the assessee stems from the fact that in the reason recorded by the AO.

Reena Verma It has been mentioned that the assessee never filed return of Income for the AY 2009-10 However, the assessee claims that it had indeed filed the return for the said assessment year but no action was taken on the return, it was not even processed u/s 143(1). Therefore, the assessee claims that the basic premise of the AO fails in acquiring jurisdiction u/s 148. I have considered this matter and I hold that even if the claim of the assessee that it had filed return for A.Y. 2009- 10 is correct, the fact is that the issues that the AC has examined in this assessment were never critically looked at in the return. Therefore, it cannot be said that issuing of notice u/s 147 was mere change of opinion. More so, when the return originally claimed to have been filed by the assessee was not even processed u/s 143(3). Therefore, this ground of the assessee fails and the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 148 are held to be valid.”

Reena Verma 7. The next issue is in respect of the taxability of Rs.11,00,000/-. The assessee has failed to bring any material on the record to contradict the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to the advance of Rs.11,00,000/- received from Shri Raghuveer Singh. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. We therefore, decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the addition of Rs.11,00,000/-. This ground fails accordingly.