KAWALJIT KAUR,MOHALI V. WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, MOHALI

ITA 1048/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

Kawaljit Kaur appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld the re-opening of her assessment for the year 2011-12 and confirmed the additions made by the AO. The AO had alleged that Kaur made an investment of Rs.3,40,15,000 in property in 2010, which was outside the relevant assessment year. Kaur contested that the property was purchased in 2011, relevant to the assessment year 2012-13, and not 2011-12 as claimed by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately investigated the matter and had relied on unverified information. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for a thorough examination of the facts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 523265 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHIL SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ\u000bधकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ, च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1048/CHD/2024 \rनधा\u0011रण वष\u0011 / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kawaljit Kaur, House No. 17, Phase-3B-1, Punjab. Vs The ITO, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh. \u0016थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVWPK9900Q अपीलाथ\u001a/Appellant \u001b\u001cयथ\u001a/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sushil Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.08.2024 passed for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal but her grievance revolves around two issues namely, (a) The ld. ITA No.1048/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 2 CIT(A) has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment and (b) confirming the additions made by the AO. 3. The brief facts of the case are that according to the AO, assessee has made investment of Rs.3,40,15,000/- in purchase of property on 24.10.2010. The AO has issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2018. He, thereafter, passed an ex-parte assessment on 06.12.2018 and made addition of Rs.3,40,15,000/- to the total income of the assessee in an ex-parte order. 4. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that alleged investment in the property was not done by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. It is an incorrect assumption of facts by the AO. The property was purchased by the assessee on 20.10.2011 i.e. Financial Year 2011-12 relevant for assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, no addition can be made in assessment year 2011-12. He placed on record the copy of the Purchase Deed and other details. ITA No.1048/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 3 6. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand contended that assessee did not appear before the AO. It is not discernible whether assessee has filed any application for additional evidence before the CIT(A). Thus, these documents are not available on the record and cognizance of these documents cannot be taken. 7. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the impugned assessment order would indicate that ld. AO has treated the alleged information received from Director of Income Tax (I&CI) as a gospel truth. He did not try to determine where assessee has made investment, which property is being purchased by him. He did not collect the Purchase Deed from the Registrar of Deeds. Thus, he has not carried out any investigation before putting the assessee under tax liability. The AO has failed to carry out any exercise even in an ex-parte assessment order. It is the AO who first brought on record demonstrative evidence exhibiting that taxable income of the assessee has escaped but he has not done any such exercise. The assessee is equally negligent. ITA No.1048/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 4 He did not respond to the AO nor put efforts to place on record these documents before the CIT(A). Thus, considering the contributory negligence, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh examination. Both the impugned orders are set aside. The issue is relegated to the file of AO. It is observed that in case no investment is being made by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12, no addition is to be made. The AO first lay his hands on the Purchase Deed entered into by the assessee during the Financial Year relevant to this assessment year, only thereafter, re-examine the issue. 8. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u000f/ The Appellant 2. \u0003\u0010यथ\u000f/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0014/ CIT 4. िवभागीय \u0003ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च\u0018डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड\u001c फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "