Anuradha Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, arising from an assessment order passed under Sections 147 read with 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 52 days. The assessee, an elderly widow from a rural background, explained through an affidavit that she was unaware of the appellate order communicated through her son’s email and filed the appeal after being informed later. Finding no wilful neglect, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
The assessee owned about 30 acres of agricultural land inherited from her deceased husband and stated that her income consisted only of agricultural income and interest on bank fixed deposits. Based on information regarding cash deposits and alleged investments in time deposits totaling ₹47.77 lakh, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions of ₹5,61,923 on account of peak bank deposits and ₹2,11,570 on account of interest on fixed deposits. The CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to fixed deposit interest but sustained the addition of ₹5.61 lakh.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings and argued that the reasons recorded for reopening were based on incorrect facts and figures. It was pointed out that while the recorded reasons referred to deposits and investments aggregating ₹47.77 lakh, the assessment itself ultimately considered only a peak deposit of ₹5,61,923. The assessee also contended that the alleged investment of ₹18 lakh in time deposits did not exist. According to the assessee, the reasons were based on borrowed information without independent inquiry or application of mind, and the approval granted under Section 151 was mechanical.
