UMA Gupta Wife of Sh. Satish Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Meerut

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed her return of income on 27.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.436270/-. A search and seizure operation were carried out by the Investigation Wing in this case on 30.11.2017 at the residential premises of the assessee. The search in this case is covered in search in the cases of Satyapal Gupta and others. The warrant of search was issued in the case of assessee. A notice u/s 153A(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee for filing the return of income. In the response of the notice the assessee has filed the return of income of Rs 5,36,270/- on 01-03-2019. The Ao has made the addition of Rs 1872000/- on account of unexplained investment and Rs 179625/- on account of unexplained agriculture income u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved the order of the Ao the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who vide his order dated 01-11-2023 partly allowed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before us.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,72,000/-on account of alleged unexplained investment in plot at SC Vihar, without consideration the submissions of the assessee properly and also confirming the applicability of Section 69 read with 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the adjournment application uploaded by the assessee on 27th of October 2023 on the portal and as also other written submission, which were uploaded on 6th of November 2023 and which ought to have been considered by the CIT(A) before passing the order.
• 3. Notwithstanding the above said fact, the Ld. CIT(A) has falled to appreciate that the said property was purchased prior to 2011, as is evident from the submissions as made before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and which has been recorded in the order of the Assessing Officer in para 1, based on the seized ledger and Assessing Officer had given a categorical finding that cash was paid for this property in earlier years and hence the said addition was not justified during the year under consideration.
• 4. That since the property had been purchased before 01.04.2011 as per seized records and also the same fact had duly been disclosed before ITSC in the case of M/s Gupta Builders, in which, the assessee is a partner and which fact was duly intimated to the Ld. CIT(A) as well by way of submissions, uploaded on 06.11.2023 and hence, the confirmation of addition and applicability of section 69 by the Ld. CIT(A) is without any basis.
• 5. That the order has been passed against the facts and circumstances of the case and on presumptions/assumptions and it is a settled law that no addition could be made on presumptions/assumptions.
• 6. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida deserves to be quashed since, though, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is dated 01.11.2023, but the proceedings were closed only on 6th of November, 2023 and as per Board Circular No.19/2019, dated 14.08.2019, no communication can be issued by any Authority under the Income Tax, unless the computer generated document identification number of the same day has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication and in this case, though the order is dated 01.11.2023, but the order is uploaded on 06.11.2023 and hence the DIN allotted and quoted in the Appellate order is not of the same day.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• V V Collection vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Jagdish Chandra Dhariwal vs. ACIT

  Jodhpur bench

• HITCHKI CREATION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

  DELHI BENCH 'C', NEW DELHI benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Prateek Joshi vs DCIT Central Circle -19, Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar Vs. ITO, Ward 22 (2)(1)

• POOJA PRABHAKAR Vs. ITO NCW 15 (1) CHENNAI