Sunita Gurjar, Jaipur V. ITO , Alwar, Bhiwadi

ITA 3/JPR/2023

AI Insights

Smt. Sunita Gurjar filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs.18,04,980 as undisclosed investment in purchasing immovable property under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had initially made this addition due to the assessee's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation or evidence regarding the source of investment in the property purchase during the assessment year 2012-13. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting the absence of any proof from the appellant despite several reminders. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lack of cooperation, decided to restore the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee another opportunity to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132483 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69B

Judgement Text

vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR JhlaanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 03/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2012-13 Smt. Sunita Gurjar Gyan Prakashi Mohalla Milakpur Goojar, Alwar-301 018 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -Bhiwadi Alwar LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DFTPG 4420 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Shri Devang Gargieya. Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘’for short NFAC’’), Delhi dated 07-11-2022 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The impugned order u/s 147/144 dated 18-09-2019 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 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.’’ 4 ITA 3/JP/2023 SMT. SUNITA GURJAR V/S ITO, WARD-BHIWARDI, ALWAR 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assesseee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/ submissions before the AO in the interest of equity and justice. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic and unserious to pursue her case and thus the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) should be sustained. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench observed that the assessee was really lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case in spite of providing various opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) and the AO as mentioned in their orders. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several authorities either by the ld. CIT(A) or by the AO to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing her case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.5,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the AO for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous 5 ITA 3/JP/2023 SMT. SUNITA GURJAR V/S ITO, WARD-BHIWARDI, ALWAR ground and remain cooperative during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by A.O. independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Sandeep Gosain) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03 /05/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Sunita Gurjar, Alwar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(4), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 03/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar