TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The appellant is an individual and the case of the assessee was re-opened based on the information uploaded by the sub-registrar that the assessee had purchased an immoveable property for Rs. 70,46,028/- during the year under consideration. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, the AO issued a notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to explain the source of the said investment. When no reply was received, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after receiving prior approval from the competent authority and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued upon the assessee on 31.03.2017. No return was filed by the assessee in response to the said notice. Thereafter, various notices were issued to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the assessment proceedings ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3. That the order dated 03.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 69(1), New Delhi in making addition of Rs. 70,46,028/- on account of amount utilized for purchasing immovable property, whereas the Appellant had not invested any sum in the said Property which was purchased by her husband Sh. Shyamlendu Chatterjee- PAN-AAIPC6471F out of his own fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 filed by the assessee. It is further submitted that the assessee has not made any investment. The copy of the purchases deed of the said property is also placed on record, according to which the said property was purchased by the husband of the assessee under the joint name of the assessee as co-owner. In the last, it is submitted that no action was taken by the Department in the case of husband of assessee who had disclosed this transaction in his return of income filed and the department had accepted the claim of deduction u/s 54 made towards purchases of property under reference. It is, therefore, submitted that neither the said property was acquired by the assessee nor any payment whatsoever with respect to the acquisition of property....