YASMIN ARA, L/H MD.AYAZ,KOLKATA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 25(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 2149/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Yasmin Ara against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69 and 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The additions were related to unexplained investments in property and discrepancies between the stamp value and the agreement value of the property. The Tribunal noted that the property was actually purchased and payments were made in the earlier assessment year, 2012-13, and not in the year under assessment. The Tribunal decided not to remand the case back to the lower authorities due to the clear evidence presented and allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473864 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HUIDROM ROBINDRO SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J. M. THARD
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No.2149/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2014-15) Yasmin Ara, L/h Md. Ayaz J-30, Fatehpur Village Road, Garden Reach, Kolkata-700024 West Bengal Vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin,2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ABAPY1334N Assessee by : Shri J.M. Thard, AR Revenue by : Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR Date of hearing: 05.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.11.2023 for the AY 2014-15. 02. The only issue pressed by the assessee during the course of hearing is against the confirmation of addition by ld. CIT (A) of ₹38,70,000/- u/s 69 of the Act and ₹71,79,825/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act, which is made by the ld. AO by ignoring the facts that the payment for the impugned property was made in the preceding/earlier assessment year. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2014, declaring the total income of ₹4,82,620/-. The ld. AO on Page | 2 ITA No. 2149/KOL/2024 Yasmin Ara; A.Y. 2014-15 the basis of information available on record reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31st March, 2021. Thereafter statutory notices along with questionnaires were issued. However, there was no response from the assessee and finally the assessment was framed by the ld. AO u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 27.03.2022, wherein two additions were made namely (i) of ₹38,70,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investments in the property and (ii) ₹71,79,825/-u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act on the ground that the stamp value of the property was more than the agreement value. Pertinent to note that that the assessee expired on 15.08.2021 and the fact was not reported to the ld. AO and accordingly the notices were issued in the name of a dead person and assessment was also framed accordingly on the same lines when no one turned up during the hearing. 04. In the appellate proceedings also, the proceeding remained unattended and finally, the ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee expired on 15.08.2020 and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the ld. Assessing Officer. Ultimately, the assessment was framed in the name of dead person. Similarly, in the appellate proceedings no one attended the proceeding and the ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of ld. AO. We observe from the record before us that the impugned property for which the addition was made in the hands of the assessee was bought by the assessee in ownership with his wife vide indenture dated 11th April, 2013 and the schedule of payments made for the said property is Page | 3 ITA No. 2149/KOL/2024 Yasmin Ara; A.Y. 2014-15 annexed to the said indenture, a copy of which is available at page no. 26 of the paper book. The same is extracted below for ready reference:- Sl No. Cheque Number Date Bank Amount (₹) 1. 042549 05.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 2. 081349 05.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 3. 042550 07.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 4. 081350 07.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 5. 042551 08.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 6. 081351 08.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 7. 042552 09.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 8. 01352 09.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 77,40,000 06. We observe from the said schedule of payments that all the payments aggregating to ₹77,40,000/- were made to the seller in A.Y. 2012-13 and not during the impugned assessment year i.e. 2014-15. Therefore, it is apparent that the property was purchased in the earlier assessment year for which the consideration was also fully discharged as stated hereinabove in the schedule of payments and it is only conveyance deed which is registered during the year in favour of the assessee and his wife. We note that the issue was accepted by the revenue in the case of assessee’s husband. After perusing the facts of the instant case before us in the light of the various evidences filed in the paper book, we are of the considered view that the additions were wrongly made by the AO on the wrong understanding of the facts that the property was purchased during the instant financial year, whereas as a matter of fact the property was purchased in the earlier assessment year and the payments were also made in the earlier assessment year . We note that assessee has duly disclosed all these payments made for the property in the return of income filed and also that all these payments were made from the banks of the assessee. Before parting we would like to state that Page | 4 ITA No. 2149/KOL/2024 Yasmin Ara; A.Y. 2014-15 though the proceedings were ex-parte before the authorities below. However, considering the open and shut case, we are inclined not to restore this file to the file of the ld. AO or ld. CIT (A) and is being decided at this stage. Accordingly, the order of appellate authority is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the addition. The other grounds raised by the assessee is not adjudicated at this stage and is left open to be decided if the need arise for the same. 07. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 01.04.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "