Devyani Pravin Solanki Vs CIT (Appeals) (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) arising from an assessment completed under Sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings after receiving information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for ₹70,00,000 and had earned bank interest of ₹69,750 during the relevant financial year. As the assessee did not file a return of income and did not respond to notices issued under Section 142(1), the assessment was completed ex parte.
The Assessing Officer determined the total income at ₹71,11,750 by making an addition of ₹70,42,000 under Section 69 towards unexplained investment in immovable property, including stamp duty and registration charges, and an addition of ₹69,750 under the head “Income from Other Sources”. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271AAC, 270A and 234F were also initiated separately.
The CIT(A) noted that despite issuance of multiple notices during the appellate proceedings, the assessee neither filed submissions nor produced documentary evidence. The appeal was therefore decided ex parte on the basis of the material available on record, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that she could not respond to the notices during the assessment and appellate proceedings due to lack of access to the registered email ID linked to the Income Tax portal, resulting in ex parte orders. It was further submitted that she was a housewife with no independent source of income except nominal interest income. The assessee contended that the investment of ₹70,00,000 in the immovable property had been made from funds received as a gift from her husband, sourced from the maturity proceeds of fixed deposits. In support of this claim, she produced documentary evidence including bank statements, details of fixed deposit closures, and the property purchase agreement. It was submitted that these documents could not be furnished before the lower authorities due to the circumstances explained.
