SHWETA SINGH,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 2(3) , SILIGURI

This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2015-16 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 06.11.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3)/144 of the Act by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Siliguri dated 11.12.2017.

Grounds of appeal

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We notice that the assessee an individual e-filed her return for AY 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 declaring income of Rs.2,96,250/-. On the basis of the information about large investment in property, case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS followed by serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. On few occasions, details as called for by the Ld. AO were Page 2 of 5 filed. But thereafter, on several dates of hearing satisfactory reply was not furnished. Ld. AO noticed that the immovable property in question is purchased jointly by Smt. Shweta Singh and her husband Shri Rahul Singh at a consideration of Rs.15,21,178/- but value of the said property adopted by the Registering Authorities was Rs.1,19,25,000/-. Considering the stamp duty paid on this property and registration fee paid, Ld. AO computed the income of the assessee at Rs.68,55,380/- making addition of undisclosed investment at Rs.13,51,214/- and u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) at Rs.52,01,911/- and assessed the income at Rs.68,55,380/-. The Ld. AO has framed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act in the following manner:

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but going through the impugned order, we notice that two dates of hearing are falling during the Covid-19 Pandemic period and on one occasion assessee could not make compliance and thus failed to succeed on any of the grounds. Before us, assessee has filed detailed submission stating that the purchase agreement was originally entered on 12.10.2007 executed by assessee’s father in law Randhir Bahadur Singh for a total consideration of Rs.30,42,356/- against which an advance bayna payment of Rs.14,82,000/- was paid on 12.10.2007. Thereafter, certain disputes arose on the transfer of land between the sellers. In the dispute one of the joint sellers accepted to sale his 50% share in land to the assessee/ the assessee’s father in law. Referring to these details it has been claimed that the purchase consideration should be adopted on the basis of the stamp duty value of the property as on 12.10.2007 and not the one taken by the AO in the assessment order.

Considering all these facts, we find that it would be fair and appropriate for both the parties if the issues raised before us are restored to the file of the Ld. jurisdictional AO for deciding the matter afresh after taking into consideration the facts of the case mainly about the purchase agreement dated 12.10.2007 and the events happened thereafter and also the payment of consideration by the assessee /her husband/her father in law and then decide in accordance with law. Accordingly, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and all the issues raised on merits are restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Needless to say that assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard and assessee to also avoid adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.