NEERAJA JAIN,UNIQUE NURSING HOME V. ITO WARD 1(1), BILASPUR

ITA 191/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Neerja Jain, a doctor by profession, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which sustained an addition of Rs. 386,467 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) during a limited scrutiny assessment, which was supposed to focus only on the capital account due to a large increase in capital. However, the A.O. extended the scrutiny beyond this scope, leading to the current appeal. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's contention that the A.O. had exceeded his jurisdiction and also noted that the CIT(Appeals) had not adequately considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(Appeals) for a detailed examination of all documents and a fair adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360503 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR KHATRI
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.191/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neerja Jain Unique Nursing Home Old Bus Stand Road, Telipara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 PAN: ADIPN7468C .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 2 Neerja Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITA No.191/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 28.02.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under facts in the law the Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant. The observation by the CIT(Appeal) that no submission is made is incorrect. 2. That under facts in the law the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.386467/- u/s 69C of the income tax act based on presumptions and surmises ignoring the submission made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 386467/- of the Ld. AO who travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 4. That under facts in the law the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition u/s 69C which is not attracted as the case was selected in limited scrutiny for large increase in capital. 5. That under facts in the law the ld. CIT(A) erred in applying section 115BBE as the appellant has no other source of income except the professional receipts. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, and omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble ITAT.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a doctor by profession who had filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring an income of Rs.10,04,680/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Assessment was completed by the A.O vide his order dated 25.11.2019 3 Neerja Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITA No.191/RPR/2025 u/s. 143(3) of the Act wherein an addition of Rs.3,86,467/- u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was made which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 3. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O travelled beyond the scope of “limited scrutiny” since only regarding the capital account he was supposed to enquire. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the capital account pertains to the gift property received by the assessee from her father, however, the A.O travelled beyond his jurisdiction and enquired regarding the valuation of the property, stamp duty, registry expenses of the property as well as investment in fixed assets. 4. Alternatively, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that the assessee had filed all the necessary documentary evidence a/w. written submission which were not considered by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. It was prayed by the Ld. Counsel that one final opportunity may be provided to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to represent her case based on merits. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR conceded to the contentions of the Ld. Counsel to the extent that one final opportunity may be provided to the assessee for adjudication substantially on merits at the level of the Ld. 4 Neerja Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITA No.191/RPR/2025 CIT(Appeals)/NFAC wherein the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall consider all relevant documents filed before it. 6. As regards the legal ground raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the A.O had travelled beyond the scope of “limited scrutiny”, I am of the considered view that when the matter is with regard to the property i.e. received as gift and as per the submissions of the assessee it is gift property within the blood relation from his father and it has been registered, therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the A.O to enquire about the valuation of the property, stamp duty and registry expenses with regard to the said gift property which is disclosed in the capital account. Therefore, the said plea of the Ld. Counsel that the A.O had exceeded his jurisdiction beyond the “limited scrutiny”, is being devoid and bereft of any substance is rejected and dismissed. 7. That regarding the alternative plea raised by Ld. Counsel on a careful perusal of Para 4.5 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it was observed by it that the assessee had failed to file any reply or documentary evidence contradicting the findings of the A.O. For the sake of completeness, Para 4.5 of the impugned order is culled out as follows: “4.5 As brought out above, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to file any reply or documentary evidence contradicting the findings of the A.O. Further, she has neither 5 Neerja Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITA No.191/RPR/2025 provided gross receipt vouchers nor has produced evidences to substantiate the cash use for stamp duty and registry expenses. She was afforded with ample opportunities to file his submissions but he did not produce the adequate evidences.” Though the Ld. Counsel for the assessee claims that the assessee had filed all the documentary evidence a/w. submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC however, there had been no enquiry conducted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act as per its order. In the interest of natural justice, one final opportunity should be given to the assessee so that the ground verification is done in this case at the level of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC calling for a remand report from the A.O by which, the scales of justice would be maintained. At the same time, the assessee will get an opportunity to substantiate before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC regarding the genuineness, as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order in terms with the mandate of the statute enshrined u/s.250(4) and (6) of the Act. I order accordingly. 8. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6 Neerja Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITA No.191/RPR/2025 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of May, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 21st May, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur "