ROHINI RAGHUNATH THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYRohini Raghunath Thakur, 7 Krishn Kamal, Mogul Lane, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016. PAN: AEKPT 7917 B Vs.
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31/03/2025 impugned herein passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y.
2018-19. 2
2. In this case despite of affording opportunity, the Assessee failed to file relevant submissions/documents and therefore in absence of same, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide assessment order dated 20/04/2021, u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determined the long term capital gain of Rs. 33,22,020/-, as against total sale consideration of property involved to the tune of Rs.
53,57,996/- by allowing deduction u/sec. 54F of the Act and accordingly, taxed the Assessee’s share @ 50% being co-sharer on account of long term capital, to the tune of Rs. 16,61,010/-, in the hands of the Assessee.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, though, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents, except seeking adjournment once. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately dismissed the same by affirming the addition of Rs. 16,61,010/- being made on account of long term capital gain by the AO.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that Assessee is a senior citizen lady and her earlier Accountant, could not pursue the case in proper manner on the reason best known to him, and the assessment proceedings were also carried out during Covid-19 pandemic and thus, it is requested that one opportunity may be provided to the Assessee so that substantial justice would be met.
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative (DR) refuted the claim of the Assessee by demonstrating the conduct from the orders of the authorities below. Ld. DR specifically 3 submitted that considering the conduct of the Assessee, it would not be appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of AO, as the Assessee is a habitual defaulter and, therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed, however, in any case, if the Hon’ble Court decides contrary, then the case may be remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner.
Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court observe that no doubt, the conduct of the Assessee, as demonstrated by the ld. DR, is not upto the mark and it is not the case here that she is the only member in her family, as it appears from the assessment order, the Assessee’s son is also a co-sharer in the property under consideration, in whose case identical addition has also been made and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner, as informed by the learned counsel for the Assessee, and therefore, Assessee does not deserve any leniency.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the Assessee has received new flat in exchange of old one through redevelopment agreement however requires detailed verification and therefore the issue involved prima-facie seems to be covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Juri ictional High
Court. And it is also a fact that assessment proceedings were carried-out during Covid-19 period, when the entire nation was on hold. Thus, again considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice and the conduct of the Assessee, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO, however subject to deposit of Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) in the Revenue-Department under the ‘other head’ within 15 days from the date of this order.
4
7. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Further, it is also clarified that this decision is rendered in a particular situation and peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore would not be applicable to the Assessee’s son’s case.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.10.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER vr/-
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai.
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai ‘SMC Bench
////
By Order
Dy./