Madhulika Mishra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that revenue has wrongly proceeded on mis-appreciation of facts of substantive nature as purchase of property wrongly alleged by AO as sale of property. Thus, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
Facts- The case of the assessee was reopened on the premise that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs.3,97,74,132/- and also received salary of Rs.3,73,347/- for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant A.Y. 2017-18 but however has not filed the return of income.
CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily on account of non-compliance of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act alleging the non-payment of advances tax liability and thereby held that the appeal before the CIT(A) is not maintainable.
Conclusion- Held that that the Revenue has wrongly proceeded on mis-appreciation of facts of substantive nature. The purchase of property has been construed as sale of property leading to such exorbitant additions and protracted litigation. The verification was put in motion by the AO on such footing. However, in the absence of any reply from the assessee before the AO or before the CIT(A), the correct facts did not surface for consideration of Revenue. Hence in the fitness of things, the matter needs to be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for determination of the issue involved afresh in accordance with law. It shall be open to the assessee to adduce all evidences and furnish explanations on the correct state of affairs before the AO without any demur. The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order after taking into account the evidences as may be placed and explanation thereon. Needless to say reasonable opportunity shall be given to the assessee in this regard.
