AASHA CHANDIRAN,ERODE vs. ITO , WARD-2(1), ERODE

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के.,उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1382/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Aasha Chandiran v. Income Tax Officer, No.929/589 A Main Road, Ward-2(1), Indira Mess, Bhavani, Erode, Erode. Tamil Nadu-638 301. [PAN: AWBPA0792J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) / NFAC (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), dated 12.01.2026 for the assessment year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2020-21.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS A VALID RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) 1. The respondent ought to have appreciated that the amendment providing that a return filed in response to a notice under section 148 shall not be treated an invalid return under section 139(1) was introduced only with effect from 01.04.2022.

ITA No.1382/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Aasha Chandiran 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing officer had erroneously rejected the return filed by the appellant in response to Notice U/s 148 for the reason that the income admitted by the appellant was substantially lower than the information available with the department.

DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

CO-OWNER SHARE - JOINT SALE - ENQUIRY MANDATORY

SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND - EXEMPT - ALTERNATIVE GROUND

For these grounds and such other grounds that may be adduced or modified before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hear the case on merits and pass such orders and thus render justice.

ITA No.1382/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Aasha Chandiran 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of the return for the year under consideration and the Revenue was in possession of certain information pertaining to the transactions entered by the assessee during the year under consideration as under: i). Form No. 61 (sale of property) filed before the Sub-Registrar, amount involved Rs. 43 Lacs; ii) Cash Deposit in one or more accounts, i.e. TMBL, amount involved Rs. 23.85 Lacs and iii). T.D.S. statement, interest other than interest on securities, amount involved Rs. 6,419/-. Based on above a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 23.03.2024, in response to the same the assessee filed her return of income on 24.05.2024 declaring total income at Rs. 1,80,400/-. Ultimately, case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act after making additions of Rs. 43 Lacs and Rs. 23.85 Lacs as STCG and u/s. 69A of the Act respectively. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on various grounds as discussed in his order. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same, preferred the present appeal before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee never turned up before the AO to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, albeit he tried to participate before the Ld. CIT (A) by filing Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.’s Bank Passbook and Agriculture Property Sold details etc. But the various claims made by the assessee like ownership pattern, joint ownership and bifurcation of consideration, the assessee is entitled for consideration of Rs. 15,19,350/- only, evidence of expenses claimed under the head long term capital gains on account of land sold amounting to Rs. 13,46,618/-, treatment of balance amount of Rs. 27,80,650/-, i.e. (Rs. 43,00,000/- (-) Rs. 15,19,350/-). 4. Nature and source of deposit amounting to Rs. 23.85 Lacs were tried to explain by claiming the same from milk sale, agricultural income, claim of past savings from agricultural income etc. In this regard it is observed that the assessee has not come forward with evidence like agricultural land holdings of the assessee, land revenue record, details of crops grown and sale thereafter, evidence of livestock records and sale thereafter etc. Still, this bench gives a benefit of doubt to the

ITA No.1382/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Aasha Chandiran assessee and matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for reconsideration of the matter after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) in a vigilant and cooperative manner by providing tenable explanations and evidence as mentioned (supra) to substantiate her claim of LTCG, deposits of Rs. 23.85 Lacs in the Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. On this issue we also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC.). In view of this, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes with above observations and directions. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced on the 24th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज के) (गगन गोयल ) (GEORGE GEORGE K) (GAGAN GOYAL) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 24th July, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रतततनधि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF