Bhawna Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee against the CIT(A)-30 order dated 08.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. The appeal challenged the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and upheld by the CIT(A), raising multiple grounds including incorrect additions, interest, and penalty. The Assessing Officer (AO) had alleged that the assessee made unaccounted payments of INR 40,69,000 during the purchase of a property at E-137, Upper Ground Floor, Preet Vihar, Delhi, stating the payments were made to Mr. Parveen Kumar Jain. The assessee clarified the property was purchased from M/s RPG Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Keshav Chawla for INR 96,00,000 under a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2020.
The assessee contended that the primary evidence relied upon—a digital image recovered from an unrelated person’s mobile phone—was neither signed nor authenticated by her. Additionally, the Assessment Order referenced an Agreement to Sell which was neither disclosed nor served in the show cause notice. She maintained she had no association with the individuals implicated and argued the additions were based on suspicion, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee also challenged interest under section 234B and penalty under section 271AAC(1) as unwarranted, noting the assessment order lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN), violating CBDT guidelines.
