JYOTI SHRINIVAS VELHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. CIT 18, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.11.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as the CIT] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

The assessee vide her grounds of appeal has agitated the invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and thereby setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order.

None has come present on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Earlier also notice has been issued to the assessee so many times. But none has ever come on the behalf of the assessee on the last so many hearings. 2 Smt. Jyoti Shrinivas Velhankar It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld. D.R.

A perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT reveals that the Ld. CIT noted that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.50 lakhs. However, the AO had not examined the source of investment in the said property. The AO did not make any queries in this respect despite the AIR information. There was a substantial increase by way of fresh capital as well as secured and unsecured loans taken during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year under consideration. However, no evidence/documents were placed on record to prove the source of funds and genuineness of transactions. The Ld. CIT therefore invoked the provisions of section 263 and called upon the assessee as to why the assessment order be not set aside. The assessee filed reply in respect to the said notice. However, considering the reply of the assessee, the Ld. CIT observed that there was nothing on record to show that the assessee had submitted any documentary evidence to prove the source of investment of Rs.50 lakhs in the immovable property. Even the AO had also failed to call the necessary information in this respect from the assessee as well as other concerned authorities. The Ld. CIT also observed that there was no documentary evidence on record to verify the increase in capital, the genuineness of the loans taken, the details of the creditors, the names, bank details, creditworthiness etc. to justify the claim of the loan taken during the year. He therefore held that the order passed by the AO dated 31.10.11 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He accordingly set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order.

The Ld. D.R. has strongly relied upon the observations of the Ld. CIT and has submitted that the assessee could not furnish the details as well as the justification regarding the source of investment in the immovable property as 3 Smt. Jyoti Shrinivas Velhankar well as increase in the paid up capital and secured loans and unsecured loans. Hence, the Ld. CIT has rightly invoked his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.

Considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R., we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT and the same is upheld.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.