Roma Prakash Chhugani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee, a senior citizen & housewife, was subjected to reassessment proceedings u/s 147, with a best judgment assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, adding ₹1.36 crore as unexplained investment u/s 69C for the purchase of a flat. She had not filed an income tax return & the assessment was done ex-parte, as she did not receive any statutory notices due to a change of address. She came to know about the assessment only after her bank account was attached by the department.
In appeal, she submitted that the flat was purchased jointly with her son, who had an income of ₹89.37 lakhs during the year. The investment was made through documented payments- ₹20.27 lakhs from a joint account with her husband, ₹21.60 lakhs from her son’s account, ₹37.61 lakhs from her husband’s account & ₹63.94 lakhs as a home loan from HDFC. All payments were made via banking channels, supported by bank statements, loan records, & income tax returns of her husband & son. The name was added in the agreement due to love & affection, though she herself had no taxable income that year. Although she submitted complete details & additional evidence to the CIT(A) & that assessee was genuinely unaware of the assessment proceedings & was prevented from furnishing evidence earlier, the claim was rejected citing technical grounds & non-compliance with Rule 46A.
