vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUn dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Anaro Devi cuke The Income Tax Officer, W/o Sh. Madan Lal, Post Baghana, Vs. Alwar.

Village- Kasimpur, Tehsil- Kotkasim, Alwar.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:BSAPD0291F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A.

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR.

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :17/04/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

Present appeal has been filed against order dated 24.01.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal which was filed by her challenging assessment order dated 24.12.2019, passed by the Assessing Officer, relating to the assessment year 2014-15.

2. The Assessing Officer made following two additions:-

 Unexplained investment in property : Rs. 49,02.320/-

 Addition on profit on sale of land: Rs. 2,44,17,300/-

3. As a result of the addition, total income of the assessee was computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 2,93,38,250/-.

4. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) deleted the first mentioned addition made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) i.e. of Rs. 49,02,320/- on account of unexplained investment in property, but, at the same time, remitted the matter to Assessing Officer to comply with the directions issued by him in this regard.

As regards the second addition, Learned CIT(A) confirmed the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned order.

Hence, this appeal.

It may be mentioned here that the assessee challenged by way of this appeal, even the order vide which the matter, as regards the first addition remitted to the Assessing Officer.

5. Arguments heard. File perused.

6. The assessment proceedings were initiated on receipt of information available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee and another, namely, Smt. Saroj Sharma during financial year 2013-14, relevant to the assessment year 2014-15, purchased following immovable properties:-

Further information received by the department was that the assesseeand Smt. Saroj Sharma sold the above said properties, only 25 days after purchase thereof.

Details as regards the sale transaction, as available in the assessment order, have been tabulated as under:

So, as per claim of the department on 04.04.2013, the assessee and another Smt. Saroj Sharma purchased the above said immovable properties for Rs. 98,04,640/-, and the same sold on 29.04.2013 for Rs.

5,86,39,200/-, and further that the seller -the assessee had profit on the said transactions of sale of said properties.

Thereupon proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.

7. The assessee submitted her reply to the notice u/s 148 of the Act along with copy of return of income, declaring her income at Rs. 18,063/-. The Authorized Representative of the assessee asked for reasons, and the department provided the same. Then, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.08.2019 and the assessee submitted her reply thereto.

8. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with two issues i.e. as regards source of investment of Rs. 49,02,320/-, for the purchase of and profit on sale of, the above said immovable properties.

As regards the first issue, the assessee replied that she had borrowed funds from RDS Buildcon and the said amount was reflected in her statement of account issued by her Bank.

The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee and the same led to making of first addition of Rs.

49,02,320/-.

9. As noticed above, on appeal filed by the assessee, Learned CI