Vijaya Laxmi Naidu, Mumbai vs Assessee

Vijaya Laxmi Naidu, CIT(A)-31, G-18, Tarapora Garden, Off. New बनाम/ Mumbai. Link Road, Andheri(W), Vs. Mumbai-400053 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. AAACG 2115G (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( यथ / Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Girish M. Balekundri यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav

सन ु वाई क तार ख / : 04.06.2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क तार ख / : 30.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER

Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:

This is an Appeal directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai ('CIT(A) for short) dated 05.01.2015, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 framed u/s. 144 r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 31.12.2012.

2 ITA No. 2457/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2005-06) Vijaya Laxmi Naidu vs. CIT(A)

2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., with regard to the addition in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs u/s. 69 of the Act. The said addition was made in the absence of any explanation by the assessee, leading to the issue notice u/s. 148. The assessment, framed by adding the said sum to the other income of Rs. 19,482/-, returned in response to the notice u/s. 148, was appealed against. However, no case in its respect being made out, the said sum stood confirmed for addition vide the impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal.

3. Explaining the assessee's case, it was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative (AR), that the assessee is an old lady, a senior citizen, facing health problems, was questioned for the source of investment in Mutual Funds (MFs) during the year, information on which had come to the possession of the Department through the Annual Information Report (AIR); the assessee having not filed any return for the year. She had been a housewife throughout, and this was her first assessment under the Act, wherein, she, on account of death of her husband, took tuitions of small children. Adducing a copy of a joint bank account, i.e., of, one, Rekha Naidu, stated to be assessee's daughter, and the assessee, with HDFC Bank, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai, reflecting a withdrawal of Rs.2 lacs on ...../05/04 (date not clear), it

was further submitted by him that the investment in question was out of the gift of the sum received from her daughter. True, the assessee did not file the requisite details before the Revenue authorities, but that was for the reason that she was keeping ill, and for that reason hospitalized at various times. This was also the reason for not responding to the opportunities extended by the ld. CIT(A); she having shifted to her daughter's residence.

4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. I find that the explanation as to the source investment in securities was the receipt of insurance money at Rs. 2.48 lacs on the death of her husband. The said 3 ITA No. 2457/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2005-06) Vijaya Laxmi Naidu vs. CIT(A)

explanation is thus inconsistent with what stands stated before me, or even the Revenue authorities. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the assessee was in a debilitated condition; copies of medical bills of recent date/s being placed on record clearly exhibit her illness, which seems to be a persisting aspect. The document in the form of the bank statement, now adduced, suggests a strong prima facie case against the addition. No doubt, it is a case of laches in complying with the obligations under the Act before the tax authorities, but the same stand reasonably explained in terms of the assessee's illness, which clearly dislocates a person, which is literally the case, with the assesee stating of having since shifted to her daughter's place. The entire judicial process is premised on the edifice of justice and, therefore, procedural deficiency should not override its due consideration (refer: Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 497 (SC); Prabhavati Shah v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (SC).

The matter is, accordingly, restored to the file of the assessing authority for a consideration afresh of the assessee's case so as to enable her to meet the Revenue's case against it. The AO shall adjudicate in accordance with law, issuing definite findings of fact. This order may not be construed as having made any reference to the merits of the case.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced accordingly on 30.06.2015

Sd/-

(Sanjay Arora) लेखा सद य / Accountant Member मंब ु ई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 30.06.2015 न.स./SK, PS 4 ITA No. 2457/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2005-06) Vijaya Laxmi Naidu vs. CIT(A)

आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent

3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)

4. आयकर आयु त / CIT - concerned

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड फाईल / Guard File // True Copy // आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai