SAVITA RAJARAM KAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1623/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Savita Rajaram Kamkar, Income Tax Officer, Ward 41 4 4, Chawl No.2, Sayyed Ismail Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai - Vs. Colony Road, Premnagar Room 400051, Maharashtra. No.3, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai – 400060, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AOOPK 2642 E Appellant Respondent

: NONE Assessee by : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR) Revenue by Date of Hearing : 22/04/2026 : 06/05/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’) 20174-18, raising the following grounds: -

“1. The learned NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of RS. 21,87,200 on account of alleged difference between stamp duty value and stated

Savita Rajaram Kamkar, 2 ITA No.1623/MUM/2026

consideration, without establishing that the appellant had in fact entered consideration, without establishing that the appellant had in fact entered consideration, without establishing that the appellant had in fact entered into any transaction of sale of immovable property. into any transaction of sale of immovable property. 2. The learned NFAC erred in rej 2. The learned NFAC erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed under ecting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A without appreciating that the assessment itself was framed ex Rule 46A without appreciating that the assessment itself was framed ex Rule 46A without appreciating that the assessment itself was framed ex parte and that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from parte and that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from parte and that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence before the Assessing Officer, producing evidence before the Assessing Officer, 3. The learned NFAC erred 3. The learned NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the in law and on facts in confirming the consequential tax demand, interest and other levies.” consequential tax demand, interest and other levies. 2. At the outset, it is observed that despite due service of notice At the outset, it is observed that despite due service of notice At the outset, it is observed that despite due service of notice through registered post, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, through registered post, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, through registered post, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment nor was any adjournment application filed. In these circumstances, application filed. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the we are satisfied that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the we are satisfied that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the assessee, assessee, assessee, after after after hearing hearing hearing the the the submissions submissions submissions of of of the the the Learned Learned Learned Departmental Representa Departmental Representative (Ld. DR). 3. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that during Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that during Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee was stated to have sold an the relevant previous year, the assessee was stated to have sold an the relevant previous year, the assessee was stated to have sold an immovable property for a declared consideration of ₹8,50,000/-, immovable property for a declared consideration of immovable property for a declared consideration of whereas the stamp duty authority adopted a valuation of whereas the stamp duty authority adopted a valuation of whereas the stamp duty authority adopted a valuation of ₹30,37,200/-. In the absence of compliance to various statutory . In the absence of compliance to various statutory . In the absence of compliance to various statutory notices issued during assessment proceddings, the Assessing notices issued during assessment proceddings, the Assessing notices issued during assessment proceddings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 of Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 o Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 o the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), and brought the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), and brought the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), and brought the differential amount of differential amount of ₹21,87,200/- to tax. During the appellate to tax. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee sought to file additional evidence in the proceedings, the assessee sought to file additional evidence in the proceedings, the assessee sought to file additional evidence in the form of bank passbooks and form of bank passbooks and bank summaries by invoking Rule 4 by invoking Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Savita Rajaram Kamkar, 3 ITA No.1623/MUM/2026

“I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant, the additional evidence filed, and the material available on appellant, the additional evidence filed, and the material available on appellant, the additional evidence filed, and the material available on record. As regards the request for admission of additional evidence under Rule As regards the request for admission of additional evidence under Rule As regards the request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, it is noted that th 46A, it is noted that the additional documents sought to be filed consist e additional documents sought to be filed consist primarily of bank passbooks and summaries showing routine salary primarily of bank passbooks and summaries showing routine salary primarily of bank passbooks and summaries showing routine salary credits and withdrawals. These documents, even if admitted, do not credits and withdrawals. These documents, even if admitted, do not credits and withdrawals. These documents, even if admitted, do not address the core issue which led to the addition, namely, the existence of address the core issue which led to the addition, namely, the existence of address the core issue which led to the addition, namely, the existence of a registered immovable property transaction standing in the name of the a registered immovable property transaction standing in the name of the a registered immovable property transaction standing in the name of the appellant as per information available with the department. The appellant as per information available with the department. The appellant as per information available with the department. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to disprove appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to disprove appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to disprove ownership, such as a registered denial deed, police com ownership, such as a registered denial deed, police complaint regarding plaint regarding misuse of PAN, or confirmation from the registering authority. In these misuse of PAN, or confirmation from the registering authority. In these misuse of PAN, or confirmation from the registering authority. In these circumstances, the additional evidence does not have a direct bearing on circumstances, the additional evidence does not have a direct bearing on circumstances, the additional evidence does not have a direct bearing on rebutting the statutory presumption arising from official records. rebutting the statutory presumption arising from official records. rebutting the statutory presumption arising from official records. Accordingly, the request fo Accordingly, the request for admission of additional evidence is rejected r admission of additional evidence is rejected and no remand report is considered necessary. and no remand report is considered necessary. On merits, the appellant’s contention that she never entered into the On merits, the appellant’s contention that she never entered into the On merits, the appellant’s contention that she never entered into the impugned property transaction is not supported by any cogent impugned property transaction is not supported by any cogent impugned property transaction is not supported by any cogent documentary evidence. The assess documentary evidence. The assessment is based on information received ment is based on information received from official sources, including stamp duty valuation records, which carry from official sources, including stamp duty valuation records, which carry from official sources, including stamp duty valuation records, which carry a strong presumption of correctness. Mere denial or suspicion of misuse a strong presumption of correctness. Mere denial or suspicion of misuse a strong presumption of correctness. Mere denial or suspicion of misuse of PAN, without supporting evidence, cannot dislodge such presumption. of PAN, without supporting evidence, cannot dislodge such presumption. of PAN, without supporting evidence, cannot dislodge such presumption. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in has held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding has held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding has held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to determine the reality of a transaction and are not bound circumstances to determine the reality of a transaction and are not bound circumstances to determine the reality of a transaction and are not bound to accept self-serving statements at fac serving statements at face value.

Savita Rajaram Kamkar, 4 ITA No.1623/MUM/2026

The plea that notices were not received due to change of address does The plea that notices were not received due to change of address does The plea that notices were not received due to change of address does not, by itself, invalidate the assessment. The assessment has been not, by itself, invalidate the assessment. The assessment has been not, by itself, invalidate the assessment. The assessment has been framed in accordance with law after issuance of notices to the address framed in accordance with law after issuance of notices to the address framed in accordance with law after issuance of notices to the address available on record. Further, the appel available on record. Further, the appellant has been afforded full lant has been afforded full opportunity at the appellate stage to place her case, which opportunity opportunity at the appellate stage to place her case, which opportunity opportunity at the appellate stage to place her case, which opportunity has been duly considered. has been duly considered. With respect to the addition on account of difference between stated sale With respect to the addition on account of difference between stated sale With respect to the addition on account of difference between stated sale consideration and stamp duty value, the statutory scheme mandates consideration and stamp duty value, the statutory schem consideration and stamp duty value, the statutory schem adoption of stamp duty value where the declared consideration is lower, adoption of stamp duty value where the declared consideration is lower, adoption of stamp duty value where the declared consideration is lower, unless specific exceptions are satisfied. The appellant has not brought on unless specific exceptions are satisfied. The appellant has not brought on unless specific exceptions are satisfied. The appellant has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the stamp duty valuation is record any material to demonstrate that the stamp duty valuation is record any material to demonstrate that the stamp duty valuation is erroneous or that the transact erroneous or that the transaction did not pertain to her. In absence of ion did not pertain to her. In absence of such evidence, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. such evidence, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. such evidence, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. Courts have consistently held that deeming provisions relating to Courts have consistently held that deeming provisions relating to Courts have consistently held that deeming provisions relating to immovable property transactions are mandatory once conditions are immovable property transactions are mandatory once conditions are immovable property transactions are mandatory once conditions are satisfied. In view of the above discussion, I find that the Assessing Officer has In view of the above discussion, I find that the Assessing Officer has In view of the above discussion, I find that the Assessing Officer has acted in accordance with law and on the basis of material available on acted in accordance with law and on the basis of material available on acted in accordance with law and on the basis of material available on record. The appellant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon her to record. The appellant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon her to record. The appellant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon her to rebut the statutory presumption or t rebut the statutory presumption or to establish that no such transaction o establish that no such transaction was entered into by her. The addition of 21,87,200 is therefore found to was entered into by her. The addition of 21,87,200 is therefore found to was entered into by her. The addition of 21,87,200 is therefore found to be justified and is hereby sustained. be justified and is hereby sustained. The consequential tax demand arising from the assessment order follows The consequential tax demand arising from the assessment order follows The consequential tax demand arising from the assessment order follows naturally and does not warrant separ naturally and does not warrant separate interference. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.” In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.” 5. We have carefully considered the material available on record We have carefully considered the material available on record We have carefully considered the material available on record and the submissions advanced by the Ld. DR. It is evident that the and the submissions advanced by the Ld. DR. It is evident that the and the submissions advanced by the Ld. DR. It is evident that the assessment was completed ex parte owing to non assessment was completed ex parte owing to non-compliance on the compliance on the part of the assessee. It is equally apparent that the additional part of the assessee. It is equally apparent that the addition part of the assessee. It is equally apparent that the addition evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was not found to be sufficient to evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was not found to be sufficient to evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was not found to be sufficient to dislodge the findings of the Assessing Officer. dislodge the findings of the Assessing Officer.

5.1 However, in our considered view, the approach adopted by the However, in our considered view, the approach adopted by the However, in our considered view, the approach adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) does not fully accord with the principles of natural Ld. CIT(A) does not fully accord with the principles of natural Ld. CIT(A) does not fully accord with the principles of natural justice. Once additional evidence was placed on record, particularly ice. Once additional evidence was placed on record, particularly ice. Once additional evidence was placed on record, particularly

Savita Rajaram Kamkar, 5 ITA No.1623/MUM/2026

in a case where the assessment itself was framed ex parte, it was in a case where the assessment itself was framed ex parte, it was in a case where the assessment itself was framed ex parte, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to make a meaningful incumbent upon the appellate authority to make a meaningful incumbent upon the appellate authority to make a meaningful enquiry, if necessary, by calling for further evidence or remand enquiry, if necessary, by calling for further evidence or remand enquiry, if necessary, by calling for further evidence or remand report, so as to adjudicate the issue comprehensively. A summary report, so as to adjudicate the issue comprehensively. A summary report, so as to adjudicate the issue comprehensively. A summary rejection of the additional evidence, without undertaking such rejection of the additional evidence, without undertaking such rejection of the additional evidence, without undertaking such exercise, has resulted in denial of effective opportunity to the exercise, has resulted in denial of effective opportunity to the exercise, has resulted in denial of effective opportunity to the assessee.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Savita Rajaram Kamkar, 6 ITA No.1623/MUM/2026

Mumbai; Dated: 06/04/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai