Smt. Srilatha Bobbala Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Addition on Property Investment Sent Back Because Facts Needed Verification; ITAT Restores Case Because Property Advance Evidence Was Incomplete; Unexplained Investment Addition Reopened Because Bank Entries Were Unclear; ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A) Order Because Assessment Was Not Ex Parte.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad condoned a delay of 182 days in filing an appeal by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 after considering medical evidence showing that the assessee suffered severe liver complications, underwent unsuccessful liver transplantation surgery, and required continuous dialysis treatment. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT, the Tribunal held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted while considering condonation of delay applications.
The dispute concerned an addition of Rs.22,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained investment in immovable property. The assessee had not filed a return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act. Based on information regarding lease transactions and property purchase of Rs.37,25,000/-, reassessment proceedings under section 147 were initiated. During assessment, the assessee explained that Rs.15 lakh came from a loan obtained from Gramin Bank and the remaining Rs.22.25 lakh was received as advance from Shri Benaveni Ramaswamy under an agreement for sale of property. The AO accepted the source of Rs.15 lakh but rejected the explanation for the balance amount, observing that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents regarding the sale agreement, mode of receipt and repayment of advance, and reasons for cancellation of the property deal. The amount of Rs.22.25 lakh was therefore added as unexplained investment.
