AO wrongly made Addition on Property Sale instead of Purchase: ITAT remands Matter due to Incorrect facts [Read Order]
Considering revenue wrongly proceeded on misappreciation of facts, ITAT remands the matter to the AO for fresh examination
AO – Addition – Property Sale instead – Purchase – ITAT – Incorrect facts – taxscan
AO – Addition – Property Sale instead – Purchase – ITAT – Incorrect facts – taxscan
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. This decision followed the assessing officer's erroneous addition on the sale of the property when, in fact, there was no sale but rather a joint purchase of the property.
The assessing officer reopened the case under the impression that the assessee had sold immovable property of Rs.3,97,74,132 and received a salary of Rs.3,73,347 for the assessment year 2016-17 but did not file the income tax return. The assessing officer passed a reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here
Aggrieved by this order, the assessee challenged the AO order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Unfortunately, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with section 249(4)(b) alleging non-payment of advances tax liability and the appeal was not maintainable.
The assessee appealed before the ITAT, New Delhi against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order.
The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee never sold any property instead she purchased a property with his husband’s money and it was a joint purchase. The assessee had not paid any amount for the purchase of the property.
The counsel further submitted that the assessee had met the conditions under section 249(4)(b), as her primary income did not require advance tax payment. The counsel submitted the assessee’s affidavit and relevant documents.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here
The revenue’s legal representative Jatender Kumar Kale argued that opportunities were provided to the assessee by the assessing officer and CIT(A) and the assessee failed to respond to the notices, leading to the reassessment order being passed.
The two-member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) and Shri Yogesh Kumar US ( Judicial Member) noted that the revenue wrongly proceeded on misappreciation of facts of a substantive nature.
The bench further observed that the absence of any reply from the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A), led to a flawed reassessment. The tribunal found the assessee’s affidavit credible and directed the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
