REENA SUBHASH SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 22 3 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that though the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹83,13,000/- to the long-term capital gains of the assessee by treating the entire sale consideration of the immovable property as belonging to the assessee, the assessee had consistently contended that she was only a joint owner of the property and that only 50% of the sale consideration belonged to her. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Form No. 26QB itself reflected that the consideration received by the assessee was only ₹83,13,000/- and not ₹1,66,26,000/-. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee had specifically raised these grounds before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal came to be dismissed ex-parte without proper adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee. Ld. Counsel, therefore, requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the grounds of appeal and the documentary evidence to be furnished by the assessee. 3. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We observe that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of ₹83,13,000/- to the long- term capital gains of the assessee on the ground that the entire sale consideration belonged to the assessee. We further observe that the assessee raised specific grounds before the Ld. CIT(A), inter alia, contending that she was only a co-owner of the property and that Form No. 26QB itself reflected consideration of only ₹83,13,000/- in her hands. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and confirmed the addition without the benefit of the assessee's submissions.

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