KETAKI VIDYADHAR CHITNIS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and in this regard, the affidavit for condonation of delay has been placed on record. After perusing the affidavit, the contents of which have not been rebutted by the Revenue, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

The ld. AR submitted that the assessment order in this case was passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), vide order dated 19.05.2023, wherein an amount of Rs. 2,61,64,000/- has been brought to tax invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Act in respect of sale of immovable property and the assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has since dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

In this regard, it was submitted that the transaction under consideration was entered into by the mother of the assessee along with the aunt of the assessee and the assessee as well as her brother were merely consenting parties to the sale agreement and in this regard, our reference was drawn to the sale deed dated 12.06.2026 available at the assessee’s paper book pages 12 to 65. It was submitted that the mother of the assessee has since filed her return of income offering the transaction to tax by way of capital gains and our reference was drawn to her return of income available at assessee’s paperbook pages 91-112. It was further submitted that the assessee was completely unaware of the reassessment proceedings and it is only after the conclusion of the reassessment proceedings, the assessee came to know about the passing of the reassessment order and the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) which has again been dismissed on account of delayed filing. It was submitted that the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A), however, the same was not considered and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

It was further submitted that on identical facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the brother of the assessee was also reopened and thereafter, pursuant to the order of ld. CIT(A) NFAC dated 13.01.2025, the matter was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has since passed the order in the case of

The ld. DR has been heard, who has fairly submitted that given that the ex parte order was passed by the Assessing Officer and the fact that in the case of the brother of the assessee, the matter was remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer, it would be appropriate that the present matter is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the sale deed as well as the fact that the mother of the assessee has since filed her return of income offering the transaction to tax in her hands.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, we find that there was a reasonable cause for non- appearance before the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of any documentation filed either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A), there are no findings on merits of the case. It is the submission of the assessee that her mother has since filed her return of income offering the sale transaction to tax which lends prima facie credence to the fact that the same transaction cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee, being merely a consenting party to the transaction. Further, it is noted that in the case of the brother of the assessee who was also a consenting party to the same transaction, similar addition was made which has since been deleted by the Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings. Considering the entirety of fact and circumstance of the case and as submitted by both the parties, the matter is set aside to the

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.