The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter of unexplained investment of ₹1.65 crore back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification.
Deepa Shinde,appellant-assessee,did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. The AO found that the assessee had purchased immovable property worth Rs. 5,65,00,000/- in the financial year 2013-14. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.03.2021, but the assessee did not respond.
Despite further notices under Sections 142(1) and a show-cause notice, there was no response. As a result, the AO made a best judgment assessment under Section 144, adding Rs. 5,65,00,000/- as unexplained investment.
Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights – Click here to Register
The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], who reduced the addition by Rs. 4,00,00,000/- but upheld Rs. 1,65,00,000/-. The assessee challenged this decision, stating that she was only a second holder of the property, which was bought entirely through banking channels by her husband, the primary owner.
The assessee’s counsel argued that the property was purchased by the assessee’s husband, with Rs. 1,65,00,000/- from the sale of his old house and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- from a Citi Bank loan. The counsel requested deletion of the addition. The revenue counsel noted the source of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- was not disclosed before the CIT(A) and supported the order.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices, leading to the addition of Rs. 5,65,00,000/- as unexplained income. The CIT(A) accepted Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as a loan taken by the assessee’s husband but upheld Rs. 1,65,00,000/- due to a lack of evidence for certain withdrawals.
Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights – Click here to Register
The two member bench comprising Sunil Kumar Singh(Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh(Accountant Member) found that the withdrawals required verification and sent the matter back to the assessing officer for review. It directed the assessee to cooperate and instructed the officer to follow the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside for fresh consideration.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
