SURUCHI NARAYAN WAYANGANKAR,KALYAN-DOMBIVALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2016/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 August 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not complied with any of the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. It also noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a significant delay. While the Tribunal found sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and ideally would have set aside the CIT(A)'s order to condone the delay, it considered the submissions made by the assessee's counsel. The assessee's counsel argued that the entire tax liability had been paid by the assessee's brother, Mr. Sudhir Gaokar. However, these facts were not presented before the Assessing Officer. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present all documents. The issue of whether the notice under Section 148A was bad in law and the merits of the capital gains declaration were not definitively decided but were to be adjudicated afresh by the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Suruchi Narayan Wayangankar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2018-19 and arose from an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment order was dated 23.01.2024. The assessee had not filed a return of income under Section 139(1). The Assessing Officer (AO) received information regarding the sale of a flat for Rs. 70,00,000/-. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, which was not complied with. Consequently, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed, followed by a notice under Section 148. During reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not file a return in response to the Section 148 notice. Despite further notices under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice, there was no compliance. The AO then passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147, assessing income at Rs. 70,00,000/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 184 days, and the delay was not condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(d) are bad in law, considering the AO allegedly issued them without possessing a copy of the sale deed, which was obtained later via a Section 133(6) notice? Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(d) are invalid because the AO did not have specific information or documents, such as the sale deed, at the time of issuance. The AO obtained the sale deed copy only on 04.12.2023, after issuing the Section 148 notice on 01.04.2022. Revenue's contention: The notice under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(d) are valid. As per Explanation 1 to Section 148, 'information' includes information as per the Risk Management Strategy. The AO had information flagged on the Insight portal under the NMS category regarding the sale of immovable property. The assessee's failure to file a submission in response to the Section 148A(b) notice prevented the AO from understanding all facts. 2. Whether the capital gains arising from the sale of the jointly owned property were already declared and taxed in the hands of a co-owner, Mr. Sudhir Gaokar, and if so, whether the reassessment proceedings are justified? Assessee's contention: The property was jointly owned by the assessee and her five brothers. During AY 2018-19, Mr. Sudhir Gaokar, a co-owner, declared the entire transaction of sale in his return of income and paid the capital gains tax. The ITAT noted that similar reassessment proceedings were dropped in the cases of other co-owners, Kishor Gaokar and Pramod Gaokar, where the AO accepted that the capital gains were shown by Mr. Sudhir Gaokar. Revenue's contention: The documents referred to by the assessee (e.g., Mr. Sudhir Gaokar's return of income) were not filed before the AO during the assessment proceedings, making them additional evidence. The Department must be given an opportunity to verify these documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 142(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Ajit U. Amdekar
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya. I.V., Jt. CIT

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 on 11.03.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 23.01.2024.

Submission of Ld. AR : 2. The Ld. AR filed additional ground. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice u/s 148 is bad in law. The Ld. AR in his written submission has filed chart which is as under : u/s 148A(b) 19-03-2022 u/s 148A(d) Order 01-04-2022

ITA No.2016/PUN/2026

u/s 148 01-04-2022 u/s 142(1) 25-10-2023 u/s 133(6) to sub registrar 04-12-2023 Show Cause Notice 05-01-2024

2.1 In this case, the Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 148 for AY 2018-19 was issued on 01.04.2022. The Ld. AR invited our attention to paper book wherein he has filed copy of order u/s 148A(d) of the Act for AY 2018-19 dated 01.04.2022. The relevant para of the order u/s 148A(d) is scanned and reproduced here as under :

2.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act alleging that the assessee has sold immovable

ITA No.2016/PUN/2026 property for Rs.70,00,000/-. The Ld. AR submitted that when the AO issued notice u/s 148, the AO was not having copy of sale deed which is evident from the fact mentioned in the assessment order that the AO obtained copy of the said sale deed by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on 04.12.2023. The Ld. AR pleaded that hence notice u/s 148 was issued without having any specific information or document regarding alleged sale of property. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) are bad in law.

2.3 On merits of the addition, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned property i.e. Flat at Rizvi House, Co-operative Housing Society, Mumbai was sold for Rs.70,00,000/- during AY 2018-19. The impugned property was jointly owned by the assessee and her five brothers. The Ld. AR further submitted that in AY 2018-19, the assessee’s brother Mr. Sudhir Gaokar who is also one of the co-owners declared entire transaction of sale in his return of income and paid the capital gain. Ld. AR submitted that Mr. Sudhir Gaokar had filed return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.07.2018 declaring the capital gain. Ld. AR invited our attention to the computation of income and return of income filed by Mr. Sudhir Gaokar. Ld. AR also submitted that vide order u/s 148A(d) for AY 2018-19 in the case of assessee’s another brother Kishor Gaokar, the ITO has accepted the submission of the assessee that said capital gain has been shown by Mr. Sudhir Gaokar in his return of income. The Ld. AR filed copy of the order u/s 148A(d) for AY 2018-19 dated 26.08.2024 in the case of Kishor Gaokar at page No. 30-34 of the paper book. Ld. AR also submitted that similarly ITO has dropped 148 proceedings vide order u/s 148A(d) dated

ITA No.2016/PUN/2026 27.08.2024 in the case of Pramod Gaokar who is also the co- owner.

2.4 However, the Ld. AR admitted that there was non- compliance by the assessee during assessment proceedings.

Submission of Ld. DR :

3.

Ld. DR submitted that assessee had not filed any reply to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 19.03.2022 for AY 2018- 19. Ld. DR submitted that since there was no compliance by the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 01.04.2022. Ld. DR submitted as per the new procedure, Explanation 1 to Section 148 information with the Assessing Officer which suggests income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment means any information as per the Risk Management Strategy. Ld. DR further pleaded that a deeming provision has been introduced. Therefore, notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) are valid as based on information provided as per Risk Management Strategy. Ld. DR further pleaded that had the assessee filed submission in response to notice u/s 148A(b), the AO could have understood all the facts but assessee failed to file any submission.

3.1 The Ld. DR also submitted that the assessee was not filed any details before the AO during assessment proceedings. Ld. DR submitted that the documents referred by the Ld. AR were not filed by the assessee before AO, hence, these are additional evidences and Department must get opportunity to verify the documents.

ITA No.2016/PUN/2026 Findings and Analysis

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The AO received information regarding sale of Flat No. 104, A Wing, Rizvi Housing Co-operative Society, Bandra Mumbai for Rs.70,00,000/- during AY 2018-19 by the assessee. The AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) dated 19.03.2022 which was not complied. Then AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee had not filed any return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.10.2023, show cause notice dated 05.01.2024 but none of the notice was complied by the assessee. Therefore, AO passed an order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act assessing the income at Rs.70,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 184 days. In the submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that assessee had never received order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and assessee became aware only when penalty order was received by Post. Assessee requested Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

In this case, admittedly, assessee had not complied any of the notices.

ITA No.2016/PUN/2026

7.

We are convinced that there was sufficient reason for delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ideally we should set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay. However, in this case, as pleaded by Ld. AR that entire tax has been paid by the assessee’s brother, but, these facts were never submitted by assessee before the AO. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, in the interest of justice, in these facts, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the documents before the Assessing Officer.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 12-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.13 12:55:48 +05'30' Ravi Kumar आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →