Nisha Tushar Bhutada Vs Jurisdictional AO (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Restores ₹84.25 Lakh Ex Parte Addition: Single Property Allegedly Reported Twice Due to Agreement and Sale Deed
The assessee, an individual and homemaker, had not filed her return of income for AY 2018-19. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by passing an order under section 148A(d) and issuing notice under section 148 on 27 February 2023.
Due to non-compliance with the notices, the AO completed the assessment ex parte under sections 147, 144 and 144B, determining total income at ₹84,24,885 based on information available on record. The CIT(A) also confirmed the additions because the assessee did not respond to the appellate notices.
Before the ITAT, the assessee contended that there was a double addition relating to the same property. According to her, she had purchased only one property, but the transaction appeared twice on the Income-tax portal because an agreement was executed first and a sale deed was registered subsequently.
To substantiate the claim, the assessee produced additional evidence comprising the sale deed, agreement, purchase deed, bank statements and profit and loss account. It was also explained that, being a homemaker unfamiliar with income-tax proceedings, she had failed to respond to the earlier notices.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the interest of justice and set aside the CIT(A)’s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after examining the evidence and granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 on 19.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 10.01.2024.
Findings and Analysis :
2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the assessee is an individual and had not filed return of income for AY 2018-19 u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 27.02.2023. Then AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.02.2023. Since, there was no compliance to the notice issued by the AO, the AO assessed the total income at Rs.84,24,885/- as per information available in the assessment order. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was no compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR pleaded that there has been double addition in the case of the assessee. The Ld. AR filed petition for admission of additional evidences along with copy of Sale deed dated 14.12.2017, copy of Agreement dated 19.12.2017, copy of purchase deed, copy of bank statements and copy of profit and loss account. The Ld. AR submitted that in the interest of justice additional evidences may kindly be admitted.
3. In this case, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had purchased only one property, however, in the Income Tax Portal the said property appeared twice as initially there was Agreement then Sale deed and as a result the property appeared twice. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an individual and house wife who was not aware about the Income Tax proceedings and hence could not comply to the notices.
4. In this case, we are convinced that the additional evidences needs to be admitted. Hence, we admit the additional evidences. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th August, 2026
