VIRENDER SINGH,DELHI vs. IO, WARD 38(4), NEW DELHI

At the outset, there is a delay of 1241 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before us. The assessee had stated in his affidavit that the order of ld. CIT(A) was received late by him and thereafter due to Covid, he was not mentally well. When this was confronted with the ld. DR, he did not raise any serious objections for condonation of delay. Hence we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs 56,18,000/- towards unexplained investment in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. There was a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) received by CCIT, Delhi vide letter no. 319 dated 05.06.2012 along with copy of Virender Singh vs. ITO registered purchase deed regarding purchase of 4 bighas and 16 biswal of agricultural land at Singhola, Delhi for a purchase consideration of Rs 53,00,000/- and Rs 3,18,000/- paid as stamp duty thereof on 31.01.2010. The petition also alleged that all the payments were made in cash. This document was registered in the name of the assessee. Since the assessee did not have PAN and had not submitted his income tax returns, the case of the assessee was reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 17.03.2017. This notice was duly served upon the assessee. The case was later transferred from Ward -38(5), New Delhi to ITO, Ward 38(4), New Delhi, by the ld. Principal CIT -13, New Delhi vide order u/s 127 of the Act on 21.07.2017. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2017, 28.08.2017 and 3.11.2017 to the assessee. There was no response from the asseseee. Finally a show cause notice dated 13.11.2017 was issued through speed post to the assessee. In response thereto, the authorized representative of the assessee attended and filed a letter dated 4.12.2017 along with copy of manually filed income tax return for Asst Year 2010-11 with computation of income and sought for adjournment. Adjournment was granted upto 5.12.2017. Thereafter, there was no response Page 3 of 5 Virender Singh vs. ITO from the side of the assessee and hence the ld. AO was forced to complete the assessment exparte by making an addition of Rs 56,18,000/- as unexplained investment made in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Act.

Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee took a stand that source for investment in immovable property was met out of gift received from brother of the assessee, in his grounds of appeal. The ld. CIT(A) issued several notices to the assessee through post and in email, but there was no response from the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the issues based on materials available on record and upheld the action of the ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that one last opportunity is to be given to the assessee to explain the sources for making investment in immovable property.