LATE KALPANA ANANT JOSHI ,MUMBAI V. I.T.O WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5753/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Nitin Anant Joshi, the legal heir of Late Kalpana Anant Joshi, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed his appeal against an ex-parte assessment order. The assessment added INR 66,87,751 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on alleged fixed deposits in the Assessee's name. The Tribunal found that three of these deposits did not belong to the Assessee, as confirmed by the bank, and thus, the addition of INR 60,34,965 was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the addition of INR 6,52,786, directing a re-examination of the source of these deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314691 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5753/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Nitin Anant Joshi Legal Heir of Late Kalpana Anant Joshi 7/22, Borla Society, Near Basant Cinema, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 074. Maharashtra. [PAN:AHJPJ0222D] .…………. Appellant Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai IT-office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Dharen Gandhi Shri Hemanshu Joshi Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 20.02.2025 07.05.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 25/09/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/10/2018, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in completing the assessment ex-parte u/s.144 ITA No.5753/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in assuming that the appellant has already consumed the basic exemption limit and thus has erred in making addition of Rs.1,90,000/-. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in adding Rs.66,87,751/- to the total income of the appellant as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. On the basis of information received to the effect that the Assessee held deposits INR.66,87,751/- with a bank, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee and noticed under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26/03/2018. Since, the Assessee did not responded to the aforesaid notice, and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 30/10/2018, under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act after making addition of INR.66,77,751/- in the hands of the Assessee by invoking provisions contained in Section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 25/09/2024. Now, the present appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 4. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. 5. On the perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, we find that the addition of INR.68,87,751/- were made on the basis of that the following Fixed Deposits allegedly held in the name of the Assessee: ITA No.5753/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 3 Reference Date of Deposit Date of Maturity Account No. Amount (INR.) 1. (FD1) 27/07/2010 02/11/2011 005-038500-051 4,32,786/- 2. (FD2) 13/10/2010 17/11/2011 005-038500-051 2,20,000/- 3. (FD3) 21/07/2010 20/08/2010 5092143074 25,00,000/- 4. (FD4) 21/07/2010 20/08/2010 5092143073 25,00,000/- 5. (FD5) 11/10/2010 13/11/2011 5317516251 10,34,965/- 66,87,751/- 6. We find that before the Learned CIT(A), the Assessee had furnished Banker’s Confirmation Letter, dated 05/02/2019, issued by the concerned bank stating the Fixed Deposits reflected at Sr. No.3 (FD3), 4 (FD4) and 5(FD5) of the table above did not belong to the Assessee or her son. However, the CIT(A) rejected the same observing that it was obligatory on the part of the Assessee for furnish the details and confirmation from the persons who had made fixed deposits using her the Permanent Account Number (PAN). In our considered view, the approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. The Assessee had clearly stated that the following three fixed deposits (i) FD3: No.5092143074 - INR.25,00,000/-, (ii) FD4 : 5092143073 - INR.25,00,000/- and (iii) FD5 : 5317516251 - INR.10,34,965/- did not belong her. The concerned bank had also issued the confirmation to this effect. We note that the CIT(A) had not doubted the authenticity of the confirmation or the contents of the said confirmation. The CIT(A) declined to grant relief stating that the Assessee should file confirmation from the persons who made deposits using her PAN despite the fact the fact that she had stated in the statement of fact that she was 85 years of age and that did not anyone to take care of tax matters. The very basis of making additions in the hands of the Assessee was the information with the Assessing Officer that the fixed deposits were linked to the PAN of the Assessee. Once the concerned bank has issued a certificate stating that the aforesaid fixed deposits did not pertain to the Assessee, the onus casted upon the Assessee stood discharged. Therefore, in the facts and ITA No.5753/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 4 circumstances of the present case, the addition of INR.60,34,965/ (FD3:INR.25,00,000/- + FD4:INR.25,00,000/- + FD5:INR.10,34,965/-) made in the hands of the Assessee under Section 69A of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted. It is clarified that the Revenue would be at liberty, as is available under law, to carry out such enquires/investigations/action in relation to the fixed deposits reflected in the PAN of the Assessee but not belonging to the Assessee as per the certificate issued by the bank. 7. As regards, addition of INR.6,52,786/- (FD1:INR.4,32,786/- + FD2:INR.2,20,000/-) is concerned, with the Assessee had explained that the source of the fixed deposits was inheritance received on death of her husband. Since the Assessee has expired, the legal heir of the Assessee is directed to file relevant documents/details in support of the aforesaid contention before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue afresh in respect of fixed deposits of INR.6,52,786/- after taking the same into consideration and the addition of INR.6,52,786/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act is set aside. All the rights and contentions (including the availability of basic exemption limit to the Assessee) are left open. 8. In view of the above, Ground No. 3 is partly allowed, Ground No.2 is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer and Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 9. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 07.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 07.05.2025 Milan, LDC ITA No.5753/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 5 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "