Case Law Details
Chetna Dilip Doshi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Facts- The assessee is an individual and has filed the ROI on 23.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 2,16,526. On 25 October 2008, the assessee along with her husband purchased flat for a total consideration of Rs. 41,00,000. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued asking for detail of premises owned by the assessee, which was duly replied by the assessee. The AO passed order dated 29 August 2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act, after considering the response of the assessee to notices issued under section 142(1), without making any addition to the returned income of the assessee.
AO vide notice dated 29 March 2016 issued u/s 148 of the Act proposed to initiate reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, AO made an addition of INR 14,00,000 u/s 69 as unexplained investment
Conclusion- It is well established that the reasons recorded by the AO cannot be further be substituted or added or deleted.
We are of the view that the reference to market value of the flat as determined by stamp duty valuation authority also cannot justify initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, as the validity of reassessment has to be tested only on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and those reasons cannot be further improved.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
