MINABEN SUDHIRBHAI SOMPURA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD-1 , SURENDRANAGAR

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1.The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the validity of assessment order as there is violation of the procedure prescribed under section 148A(b) on account of failure of the Ld. JAO to provide the requisite material which ought to have been supplied along with the information in terms of the section 148A(b) of the Act.

Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an Individual. The return of income for AY 2018-19 was not filed by the appellant. The case was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of information made available to the AO in the insight portal as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT according to which the appellant had purchased immovable property for Rs.1,00,00,000/-. A notice u/s 148 was issued on 31/03/2022 after following the prescribed procedure. The appellant had filed return of income on 29/04/2022 declaring total income of Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellant had submitted housing loan details from DHFL of Rs.31,55,050/- only and had claimed that her share in the property is only 20% but no other details were filed in spite of giving 4 opportunities including show cause notices issued and opportunity of personal hearing granted through VC but assesse fail to avail the opportunity, therefore assessment was completed by making addition of Rs.64,00,000/- as unexplained investment, Total income assessed at Rs. 66,00,000/-.

That the assessee filed an appeal against the order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the appeal was partly allowed by following remarks:

We have heard both the parties carefully and gone through the submission put forth on record. We note that the assessee submitted. The assesse has purchased property worth Rs. 64,00,000/- and the assesse paid through banking channel. The assesse submitted that out of the total amount of Rs. 64,00,000/-, Rs.30,00,000/- was invested in previous year not relevant to this year and Rs. 31,55,050/- housing loan, taken from DHFL, loan confirmation, bank statement was placed on record. The assesse also stated that her share in property is only 20% however no supporting document was filed. The assesse has also taken unsecured loan from various persons but the assesse could not prove beyond doubt about the loan. Considering the above fact and circumstance of the case, and considering the smallness of the amount and in order to protect the revenue leakage an ad-hoc, estimated addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we find that there is some merits in the case of the assesse, at the same time entire relief cannot be permitted to the assessee. In our view the ends of justice would be met if disallowance @ 10% of Rs. 64,00,000/- which comes to Rs. 6,40,000/-, since the same would take care of the inconsistencies, in the various documents and evidences submitted before the lower authorities. Therefore, in order to plug the leakage of revenue, we direct the assessing officer to make addition of Rs. 6,40,000/-, by applying the normal rate of income tax (not under section 115BBE of the Act). It is also made clear that instant adjudication Page 3 of 4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.