Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Nandita Pathak (ITAT Hyderbad)
IYTAT find that the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs.1,49,49,750/- on the ground that the assessee did not file any explanation regarding the investment in the foreign immovable property being 50% of her share of the total investment of Rs.2,98,99,500/-. We find the learned CIT (A) on the basis of certain documents filed by the assessee deleted the addition without calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer or without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the documents. In our opinion, since the assessee had not filed the documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer to explain the source of the investment in foreign immovable property as called for by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the learned CIT (A) was duty bound to give an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the documents filed by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings. Therefore, there is clear violation of provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11/08/2022 of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2018-19.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and was employed with Amazon Development Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd for the impugned A.Y 2018-19. She had filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.53,72,850/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify “Large Investment in foreign assets-immovable property”. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to furnish the details along with supporting documents regarding large investment in foreign immovable property. The assessee in her response submitted that she jointly owns one house property in US with her spouse which was let out during the year. Since the investment towards the property was jointly made by her and her spouse in the ratio of 50:50, 50%, the house property income (after considering the possible deductions) has been accordingly offered for tax in India in the tax return filed for the A.Y. 2018-19. Balance 50% of the house property income has been offered in the hands of her spouse. However, there was no response from the assessee regarding the source of investment in foreign immovable property as called for by the Assessing Officer as per the questionnaire. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.2,03,22,600/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
