Unsigned and undated draft documents lack evidentiary value in tax assessments, and cannot justify reopening of assessments or tax liability.

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This appeal by the Hetal Brijesh Ukani, being legal heir of Brijesh P Ukani, is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 02/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee.

“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction to pass such order against the Appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, that order passed by the ld. AO is void ab initio and it deserves to be set aside.

2. Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding Rs. 76,51,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investments of Late Shri Brijest P. Ukani u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the appellant.

4. Alternatively and without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making the above addition in the hands of Appellant again leading to double taxation. Since, such addition has already been done in the hands of Parshottambhai N. Ukani.

5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B/C of the Act.

7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or changed all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee (Brijesh P Ukani) had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09. The case of assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 was reopened on the basis of information received from ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat that the Investigation Wing, Surat carried out a search and survey action on builders and land dealers in Surat on 27/12/2022. During the course of search and survey action, a compact disc (CD) from the computer in the office of Mr. Turnish B Kaniya and Mrs. Meera T Kaniya was recovered. On perusal of data contained in said CD, it was found that there was various draft satakat in the computer of Turnish Kania. From one of the satakat it was revealed that the assessee Brijesh P Ukani had purchased a property situated at Revenue Survey No. 47, Gabhani, Surat for a consideration of Rs.76.51 lacs. The payment of sale consideration mentioned on the said Satakhat, was shown in cash. Brijesh P Ukani passed away in 2011, the assessee Hetal Brijesh Ukani being his wife and legal heir, who has contested assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer, thus recording reasons of reopening that income of Brijesh P Ukani has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 30/03/2015. Copy of reasons recorded were also provided to the appellant. On service of