SUNITA GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , ALWAR, BHIWADI

ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

2. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order in a haste without 2 ITA 3/JP/2023 SMT. SUNITA GURJAR V/S ITO, WARD-BHIWARDI, ALWAR affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, hence the same kindly be quashed or alternatively be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming addition made u/s 69B of the Act at Rs.18,04,980/- as undisclosed investment in purchasing immovable property. The addition so made, being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. Kindly be deleted in full.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Department, it is noticed by the AO that the assessee had purchased immovable property alongwith their co-owner for value at Rs.2.00 crores and also incurred an amount of Rs.18,10,180/- as stamp duty expenses and other charges. The AO noted that total investment was to the tune of Rs.2,18,10,180/- during the A.Y. 2012-13 wherein assessee’s share of investment in purchase of above property comes to Rs.18,04,980/-. The AO on verification of record observed that the assessee had not filed her ITR for the relevant year for which assessee was directed to by the AO to file the reply regarding the transaction made in the property but it was not complied with and thus the source of investment for the above transaction could not be verified which resulted into escapement of assessment to the tune of Rs.18,04,980/-. Hence the AO made an addition of Rs.18,04,980/- in the hands of the assessee Smt. Sunita Gurjar by observing as under:-

3 ITA 3/JP/2023 SMT. SUNITA GURJAR V/S ITO, WARD-BHIWARDI, ALWAR ‘’The Department has concrete and enough evidence that the assesse had purchased immovable property alongwith other co-owner for value at Rs.2.00 crores and also incurred an amount of Rs.18,10,180/- as stamp duty expenses and other charges. Thus, total investment was made of Rs.2,18,10,180/- during the financial year 2011-12 wherein assessee’s share of investment in purchase of above property comes to Rs.18,04,980/-. This means that the assessee had invested Rs.18,04,980/- in purchase of immovable property whereas the assessee had not filed her ITR, for the relevant year. Plenty of notices were also issu9ed to the assessee but no compliance were made. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation/ evidences filed by assessee, the source of amount invested in respect of purchase of property remained unverified and the same is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the light of above discussion, an amount of Rs.18,04,980/- is hereby added u/s 69B of the I.T. Act, into the total income of the assessee.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’4.1 Addition was made u/s 69B on account of unexplained investment. 4.2 In statement of facts appellant pleads that purchase and sale of land was a result of family settlement in which she had not received any consideration. No proof as to above has been filed despite several reminders. 4.3 As a result, there appears to be no reason to doubt the view taken by the AO. 4.4 Appeal is hence without merit and the same is dismissed.’’