CHITRA ZACHARIAS,USA vs. ITO 4(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 4779/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2026AY 2015-168 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's status as an NRI and US citizen, and the lack of awareness of Indian tax laws, coupled with communication gaps. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the case was called for hearing on multiple occasions, but neither the assessee nor any representative attended, and no adjournment application was filed. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not keen to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal perused the orders of the authorities below, finding that the DRP had duly considered the assessee's submissions before dismissing the objections on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. The grounds of appeal and the appeal itself were dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chitra Zacharias, an individual and a US citizen, is appealing an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (DRP-1), Mumbai-2, concerning directions under Section 144C(5) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed after a significant delay, which the Tribunal condoned due to the assessee's lack of awareness of Indian tax laws and communication gaps. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 148 based on information flagged on the NMS module of the Insight Portal regarding the sale of immovable property for Rs. 1,18,50,000. The assessee failed to provide crucial documents like the purchase deed and sale deed. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the assessee's objections regarding the validity of reopening and service of notice, upholding the AO's draft assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148 by the AO were beyond his jurisdiction, considering the assessee's address and citizenship (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 148). 2. Whether the show cause notice under Section 148A(d), notice under Section 148, and order under Section 148A were validly served or deemed to be served on the assessee (mixed law and fact, concerning service of notice). 3. Whether the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the AO's jurisdiction and prescribed time (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 148). Assessee's contentions: The AO lacked jurisdiction as the assessee is not an Indian citizen and her Indian address was different at the time of proceedings. The assessee had informed the department about property sale and her new communication address. Notices were never served or deemed served. The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond jurisdiction and time by a non-jurisdictional officer. The AO in Panji, who had jurisdiction, issued his first notice much later. Revenue's contentions: The DRP observed that the responsibility for updating the PAN database lies with the assessee. Notices were issued to the address available in the PAN database, which was justified as the change in address was not intimated to the AO. The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) covering all issues, and the assessee did not challenge this order before any judicial authority. The DRP emphasized that legal positions post-April 2021 for reopening assessments were followed, and the notice under Section 148A(b) was based on tangible information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(5),Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

P a g e | 8 IT (IT) A No. 4779/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Chitra Zacharias 3. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 4. दिभागीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यादपि प्रदि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 144C(5)

All 865 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →