Kanta v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v. Volkart Brors. & Ors. 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0355 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 2000 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M., & YOGESH KUMAR US, J.M. Kanta v. ITO ITA No. 2213/Del/2023 16 April, 2024 Appellant by: Rano Jain, Adv. Respondent by: Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR. ORDER *Shamim Yahya, A.M.* The Assessee has filed the present Appeal against the Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 5-6-2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act), relating to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154, is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order under section 154 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the issue in question is not a mistake apparent from record, hence, not rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. (ii) That the assessing officer has attempted to review his own order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, which is not permissible under section 154 of the Act. (iii) That an issue which can be resolved through a long drawn process cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition under section 68 of the Act, despite the assessee having explained the source of investment with proper documentary evidences. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee had made investment of Rs. 68,63,000, expenses on registration of Rs. 15,000 and stamp duty of Rs. 2,05,900 totaling Rs. 70,83,900 on 19-2-2010 for the year under consideration. It was noticed by the assessing officer that though the assessee had made investment of Rs. 70,83,900 for the year under consideration but the assessee failed to file her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27-3-2017 and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a copy of return of income on 8-8-2017 declaring total income NIL. The assessee at the time of assessment proceeding, intimated that the amount of Rs. 70,83,900 was generated by her late husband Sh. Arjun Singh as advance money taken by him from his relatives at the time of sale of agricultural land. Accordingly, assessing officer completed the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 3-10-2017 accepting the income returned at Nil by observing as under : - SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 2000 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH

SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M., & YOGESH KUMAR US, J.M.

Kanta v. ITO

ITA No. 2213/Del/2023

16 April, 2024

Appellant by: Rano Jain, Adv.

Respondent by: Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR.

ORDER

Shamim Yahya, A.M.

The Assessee has filed the present Appeal against the Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 5-6-2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act), relating to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154, is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order under section 154 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the issue in question is not a mistake apparent from record, hence, not rectifiable under section 154 of the Act.

(ii) That the assessing officer has attempted to review his own order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, which is not permissible under section 154 of the Act.

(iii) That an issue which can be resolved through a long drawn process cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition under section 68 of the Act, despite the assessee having explained the source of investment with proper documentary evidences.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

2. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee had made investment of Rs. 68,63,000, expenses on registration of Rs. 15,000 and stamp duty of Rs. 2,05,900 totaling Rs. 70,83,900 on 19-2-2010 for the year under consideration. It was noticed by the assessing officer that though the assessee had made investment of Rs. 70,83,900 for the year under consideration but the assessee failed to file her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27-3-2017 and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a copy of return of income on 8-8-2017 declaring total income NIL. The assessee at the time of assessment proceeding, intimated that the amount of Rs. 70,83,900 was generated by her late husband Sh. Arjun Singh as advance money taken by him from his relatives at the time of sale of agricultural land. Accordingly, assessing officer completed the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 3-10-2017 accepting the income returned at Nil by observing as under : -