NITU KUMARI MANISH KUMAR,AHMEDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 714/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 45,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not file her return of income for the assessment year 2018-19, and the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that she had purchased an immovable property during the relevant year. The property was purchased jointly with her husband, and the AO presumed equal ownership due to lack of specific allocation, treating Rs. 45,00,000 as the assessee's share. The assessee contended that the entire investment was made by her husband from his disclosed sources. The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved one final opportunity to substantiate her claim and directed a de novo adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712100 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PATHAK
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ]BEFORE MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.714/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar Shreenath Bungalows Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. PAN : DVFPK 8773 R Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Nitin Pathak, AR Revenue by : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)NFAC”], dated 24.02.2025, confirming the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act in the order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 28.03.2023. Facts in Brief 2. The assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2018–19. Based on information received through the Insight Portal under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.714/Ahd/2025 2 the category “RMS – Non-filing of Return,” the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant previous year. A notice under section 148A(b) dated 20.03.2022 was issued to the assessee. However, no reply was filed. Thereafter, the AO passed a speaking order under section 148A(d) dated 31.03.2022, concluding that income had escaped assessment, and issued notice under section 148. Despite service of notice, no return of income was filed. Initially, the assessment proceedings were transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), but were subsequently returned to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) due to the assessee's failure to register on the e-filing portal. The JAO then issued notices under section 142(1) on 15.11.2022 and 06.12.2022, and a show cause notice dated 10.01.2023. In response, the assessee submitted that the property in question was purchased jointly with her husband, Shri Manish Kumar, and the entire investment was made by him from his income and savings. The assessee claimed she was merely a nominal co-owner. The AO, however, observed that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the above claim. In particular, the assessee did not submit a copy of the registered purchase deed, the bank account statements of the assessee and her husband, loan sanction letter or repayment schedule and proof of source of funds or stamp duty payment, etc. On verification of the sale deed (Document No. 109/2018 dated 02.01.2018), the AO found that the assessee and her husband were co-purchasers of a property valued at Rs.90,00,000/-. Since the deed did not specify the ratio of ownership, the AO presumed equal contribution and treated Rs.45,00,000/- as assessee’s share. In the absence of books of account and supporting explanation, the AO invoked section 69 of the Act, holding that the investment of Rs.45,00,000/- was unexplained, and taxed the same under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC were also initiated. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.714/Ahd/2025 3 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, contending that the entire investment in the property was made by her husband from disclosed sources and the addition in her hands would amount to duplication. However, despite multiple notices issued by the CIT(A), NFAC on 28.01.2025, 05.02.2025, and 12.02.2025, the assessee did not file any submission or documentary evidence. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and relied on various judicial precedents discussing the maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The appeal was dismissed ex parte, and the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A),NFAC, the assessee filed an appeal before us raising following solitary ground – Learned AO addition made on assumption basis that immovable property brought was in my name But actual fact of case is the said property was in joint name and my share of payment was zero and this property is out of my husband income or accumulated savings. 5. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee’s name was included in the property document as a matter of convenience, and she had not made any financial contribution. The entire investment had been sourced from the bank loan and savings of her husband, who had disclosed the same in his return of income. The addition made under section 69 was unjustified as there was no material to suggest that the assessee had made any unexplained investment. The AR submitted that non-compliance before the CIT(A) was unintentional and occurred due to lack of proper guidance and technical inability. 6. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon her under section 69. No documentary evidence had been submitted either before the AO or before the CIT(A), and hence, the addition was rightly made. However, the DR raised no objection Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.714/Ahd/2025 4 in restoring the matter back to the file of AO for verification of documents placed on records by the assessee before us. 7. We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities and rival submissions. The limited issue for adjudication is whether the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in property purchased jointly with the assessee’s husband is justified in the facts of the case. 8. The purchase deed dated 02.01.2018 evidences that the property was purchased jointly by the assessee and her husband. The AO presumed equal ownership in the absence of specific allocation and made addition under section 69 in the hands of the assessee. The assessee’s claim that the entire investment was from her husband’s disclosed sources is a factual plea which ought to have been substantiated through documentary evidence. We note that the assessee did respond to the AO’s show cause and claimed the investment was entirely financed by her husband. However, in the absence of bank statements, loan documents, or property deed, the explanation was not accepted. Before the CIT(A), the assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices. While such non-compliance is not condonable, it would not preclude the assessee from seeking decision on merits where prima facie duplication of addition is alleged. 9. In our considered view, the assessee deserves one final opportunity to substantiate her claim that the investment was made solely by her husband and duly disclosed in his return of income. The assessee has raised a serious contention that may result in duplication of taxation, and justice would be served by enabling her to produce necessary evidences to support her claim. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate and furnish all relevant documentary evidence in support of her claim including Copy of the sale Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.714/Ahd/2025 5 deed, Bank statement of her husband, Housing loan documents, Proof of ownership disclosure in husband’s ITR and Any other supporting evidence. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th July, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 25/07/2025 vk* Printed from counselvise.com "