AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Shri Pranav Arya, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) in ex-parte proceedings made addition of Rs.18,13,500/-u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) alleging that the assessee had made investment in purchase of immovable property. The Id. Counsel submits that the residential flat bearing no. S-2, Second Floor, Plot No.1/10, Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad was jointly purchased in the names of Shri Vipin Kumar (husband of the assessee) and the assessee vide registered sale deed dated 28.11.2011 for a total consideration of Rs.33,80,000/-. The funds for purchase of said residential property were sourced as under:
Loan from HDFC Bank Ltd. Rs.20,00,000/- (Copy of the statement of home loan is at page 22 of the paper book),
Sale of old residential property in the name of the assessee Rs.19,20,000/-(copy of sale deed dated 31.10.2011 furnished during hearing of appeal).
The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings as the notices issued by the AO were never served on the assessee. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished all the relevant documents to substantiate source of funds for purchase of property. However, the CIT(A) in the impugned order has reproduced the submissions of some other case and not the submissions of the assessee, and dismissed appeal of the assessee in a mechanical manner. The ld. Counsel thus prayed for deleting the addition.
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department submitted that the matter can be remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The documents placed on record by the assessee, perused. In the first part of the assessment order, the entire discussion is with regard to investment in immovable property and finally the AO made addition of Rs.18,13,500/- u/s.69 of the Act, on account of unexplained cash deposits. There is no coherence between the final addition made and the discussion in the body of the assessment order. In any case, the assessee has been able to substantiate the source of investment in the immovable property. The property purchased at S-2, Second Floor, Plot No.1/10, Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad is in the joint names of the assessee and husband of the assessee. The assessee has placed on record copy of sale deed dated 31.10.2011 whereby residential property was sold by the assessee for a total consideration of Rs.19,20,000/-. Further, the husband of the assessee had taken loan from HDFC Bank Ltd. to finance payment of consideration for purchase of the property. Copy of statement of home loan account is at page 22 of the paper book.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has reproduced submissions of the Counsel from some other case. The CIT(A) in a mechanical manner has passed the order without appreciating the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case and documents on record, I am of considered view that the addition of Rs.18,13,500/- u/s.69 of the Act, made by the AO deserves to be deleted. The AO is directed to delete the same.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.