PRAJAKTA NITIN VAIDYA,NAGPUR V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

ITA 373/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Prajakta Nitin Vaidya, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld the additions made to her income by the Assessing Officer. The additions were based on the claim that she had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 3 lakh in the Wasankar Group during the financial year 2012-13. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the amount recorded by the Assessing Officer and acknowledged that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove that the investment was made from her own savings and not from unexplained sources. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the records and the absence of any substantial evidence to support the claims made by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474263 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. D.C.I.T. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.373/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Ms. Prajakta Nitin Vaidya Plot no.4, Corporation Colony North Ambazari Road Near Gandhinagar Square Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AEBPV4376N ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–1(5), Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 09/12/2024 Date of Order – 20/12/2024 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 08/04/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law by upholding the additions made to the income of assessee when the information was received through the FIR which is not substantive evidence as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court and cannot solely be relied upon. 2 Prajakta Nitin Vaidya 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law by upholding the additions made to the income of the assessee even though the assessee has not received any amount from his investment in wasankar group. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law by upholding the additions made to the income of the assessee without any corroborative evidence and ignoring the submissions of the assessee and evidences produce by her. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law by upholding the additions made of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the income of the assessee, as the assessee is a house–wife and saved the amount and invested it in wasankar group. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law by upholding the notice issued by the Ld AO u/s. 148 of the act without providing all the reasons and source of information for reopening before the issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Act and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. D.C.I.T. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in recording reasons for reopening in the standard template, merely on surmises and conjectures without any tangible material and mechanically, without any independent application of mind. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law by upholding the notice issued by the Ld AO u/s. 148 of the act without forming an independent opinion and merely relying upon the FIR copy. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any of her authorised representatives appeared before us to assist the Bench in disposing off the appeal filed by the assessee. However, the Bench was of the view that the appeal of the assessee can be disposed off qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record. Thus, we proceed to dispose off this appeal on merit. 4. In this case, the assessee is an Individual not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. As stated in the assessment order, the 3 Prajakta Nitin Vaidya Assessing Officer had received information from the learned Principal CIT–1, Napgur, through sharing of information that the assessee had invested an amount of ` 3 lakh with Wasankar Group during the financial year 2012–13 relevant to the assessment year 2013–14. Hence, the Assessing Officer proceeded to verify the issue and accordingly the case was re–opened under section 147 of the Act. Statutory notices were issued by the Assessing Officer and in response, the assessee filed her reply dated 07/02/2022. According to the Assessing Officer, as per information available on record, the assessee had invested an amount of ` 3 lakh with Wasankar Group during the F.Y. 2012-13, however, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the assessee to adduce evidence of proving the source of investment, the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of the aforesaid investment of Rs. 3 lakh. Therefore, investment of ` 3 lakh made by the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13 was considered as her unexplained investment for the F.Y. 2012-13 which was added to her income by passing assessment order under section 144 r/w section 144B on 19/03/2022.. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 6. As already stated above, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer was correct in making addition of ` 3 lakh as the assessee has not adduced any evidence to prove the source. Therefore, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the authorities below. 4 Prajakta Nitin Vaidya 8. I have heard the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative and gone through the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the material available on record, I find that the assessee had, in fact, as per record, invested ` 1,52,000 on 24/07/2010 and ` 35,000 on 18/04/2012, aggregating to ` 1,87,000, but the Assessing Officer had mistakenly show the invested amount by the assessee as ` 3,00,000. The assessee categorically denied having invested ` 3,00,000, rather agreed to have invested ` 1,87,000. I also find that the assessee has not received any income as interest on such investment in Wasankar Group. Before the authorities below, the assessee has even filed return of income and produced other connected documents proving her source of investment. I find that the investment made by the assessee is out of her own hard earned savings of preceding years. In view of these facts, I find no justification in making addition of ` 3 lakh by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ` 3 lakh made on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and re–compute the income of the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/12/2024 NAGPUR, DATED: 20/12/2024 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER 5 Prajakta Nitin Vaidya Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "