SMT. SUMITRADEVI KAMALKUMAR AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In assuming jurisdiction U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act by issuing notice dated 30-03-2021 for the AY 2016-17, it is said that the whole proceeding is itself bad in law and void and the reason recorded is itself vague and cryptic and therefore, the reopening is liable to be quashed.

It is further submitted that no incriminating documents was found from the premises of Navratna Organizers to support the reason recorded as well as in support of the Rs.28,30,250/- and therefore, the addition is required to be deleted. 3. It is further submitted that no such statement of Navratna Organization and Developer Pvt. Ltd of any director or any authorize persons have been provided and even otherwise, the cross examination has been requested which was denied and therefore, it is said that the proceeding is bad in law and void. 4. It is further submitted that in any case on merits, there is no justification to make the addition in FY 2016-17 instead of it should be in FY 2010-11 and therefore, the addition in this year is required to be deleted.”

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 82 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 11/07/2024 seeking condonation of the said delay on the grounds that no intimation of this order was received via SMS or email. The assessee also stated in the affidavit that order of CIT(A) was discovered on or around May 20, 2024, when the deponent's Chartered Accountant checked the ITBA portal and informed her and subsequently, instructions were given to file the appeal. Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 3.1. Keeping in view the reason given by the assessee in her application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay of 82 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and even learned DR has not raised any material objection in this regard. We, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

The brief facts of the case culled out from the records are that the assessee filed her return of income on 25/06/2016 declaring total income of Rs.7,67,940/- during the year under consideration. On receipt of information from DCIT Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad that the assessee has purchased villa/plot and paid on money of Rs. 56,60,500/- to M/s. Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NODPL), the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, after recording the reasons and obtaining approval u/s.151 of the Act. The AO issued Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2021, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148. The assessee declared total income of Rs. 7,67,940/- and provided details such as computation of income, balance sheet, property purchase agreements, and conveyance deeds. The assessee explained that the property (Unit No. 248 in Kalhaar Blues and Greens) was purchased on September 21, 2010, with a conveyance deed executed on March 23, 2016, for Rs. 1,11,60,500/- and the property was jointly owned by the assessee and her husband, with each holding a 50% share. The payment was made via bank loans and personal funds, with no cash payments involved. A show cause notice dated March 18, 2022, was issued to the assessee proposing an addition of Rs. 28,30,250/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The assessee denied any cash payments to NODPL and highlighted that no Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 corroborative evidence existed to prove the alleged unexplained investment. It was argued by the assessee that since the property was purchased in the financial year 2010-11, no addition should be made for the assessment year 2016-17 under review. The AO did not accept the assessee's submissions and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.35,98,190/- after adding Rs. 28,30,250/- as unexplained investment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

We have heard both parties perused the material on record, and carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noted that the email address mentioned in Form 35 is gauravfab1987@gmail.com, which does not pertain to the assessee. This lends credence to the contention of the learned Authorized Representative (AR) that the assessee did not receive any notice or order from the CIT(A). Given that the issue was not adjudicated on merits, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 6.1. However, we cannot overlook the conduct of the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The assessee’s lack of diligence has contributed to the delay in proceedings, thereby placing an undue burden on the judicial system. To underscore the importance of compliance and to deter such conduct in the future, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable to the Income Tax Department.