VANDANA CHHAJER,SAINTHIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment has been sought for. Hence, the matters are to be decided ex-parte. However, the assessees have filed written submissions. is concerned the appeal is barred by limitation by 7 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed and the reasons assigned thereto appears to be genuine and thus, the delay is condoned.

Both the assessee purchased an immovable property jointly at Rs. 1,00,22,283/- on 07.05.2015. After making payment of stamp duty and registration fees the total valuation of said immovable property came to Rs. 1,08,34,203/-. Each assessee has 50% share of the said property. The assessees were issued notices asking for explanation of the source of investment made and in the absence of reply and/or explanation against such notice, addition was made on the difference of amount of investment in the immovable property less total past saving in the hands of the respective assesee.

Before the First Appellate Authority it was submitted by the assessee that these two assessees along with their other two sisters, total four, entered into an agreement dated 15.03.2013 to purchase the said property and partial payment has been made by each assessee on 31.03.2015. However, the property was ultimately purchased by these two assesses as at the time of deed of convenience the other two sister namely Manju Chhajer and Sangeeta Chhajer expressed their unwillingness to purchase the aforesaid property. The amount paid by the other two sisters namely Manju Chhajer and Sangeeta Chhajer has been shown as loan by these two assesses before us. However, as they failed Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suman Chhajer & Vandana Chhajer to explain the source of funds in the hands of the said Manju Chhajer and Sangeeta Chhajer neither any confirmation nor bank statement of these two individuals since filed, the claim of source of loan from the other two sisters were treated as unexplained and added in the hands of the assesses before us.

At the time of hearing of the matter, when the proposal from the bench for sending the issue to the file of Ld. AO to consider the same afresh upon examining the aforesaid documents which the assessees failed to submit before the First Appellate Authority were expressed, the Ld. D.R has not raised any objection with all his fairness.

Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, we dispose off these two appeals by remitting the issue to the file of Ld. AO to consider and decide the same afresh upon considering the bank statements and confirmations of Manjula Chhajer and Sangeeta Chhajer to be filed by the assessees. The Ld. AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assesses and also to consider the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessees may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matters.

In the result, both the appeals of the above assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.