USHA MARAZBAN PITHAWALLA,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI () & SMT. RENU JAUHRI ()
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:
The present penalty appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 03/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal :
“
The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AO) bearing
DIN number
ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041348792(1) erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax
2
ITANo.2177/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15
Usha Marazban Pithawalla
Act for A.Y. 2014-15 treating the Appellant as asssessee in default against which Appellant have filed an appeal with the National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi but appeal was not accepted by CIT
Appeals and rejection order passed
(DIN
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073925735(1)) for appeal was not file in time after rejection of our condonation of delay.
2. The AO erred in raising a tax demand of Rs. 2,36,12,001/-
(including interest of Rs. 1,54,13,368/-) u/s 147 read with sec.
144 of the I.T. Act by stating purchase of Flat made by the assessee is unexplained not genuine. The appeal for the same is already filed before your honour.
3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AO) bearing
DIN number
ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2022-23/1045845744(1) erred in passing an order u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2014-15
treating the Appellant as assessee in default.
4. The AO erred in raising a tax demand of Rs. 81,98,633/- u/s 147
read with sec. 144 of the I.T. Act by stating "Penalty proceedings for concealment of income has been initiated separately by issue of notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 was issued and served to the assessee asking the assessee as to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied in his case. The assessee has not filed any reply"
5. If your honor peruses the said Flat Purchase Agreement, the said flat is purchased by your appellants is in joint name with her husband Mr. Marzban Pithawala who is the first owner and NRI.
Even the agreement has mentioned his passport number as he did not have PAN in India at the time of purchase. Appellant's name was second name and kept for security purpose as any Husband will like to do for his wife. All the major payment was done from Husband's account only some money was paid by your appellant by breaking the fixed deposits to the tune of Rs. 50,34,000/- (Rs.
Fifty Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand only). These Fixed deposits were made from the savings which she did from some interest she earned and from the money which she received as gift from her husband.
6. Furthermore, we are also submitting the balance payment of the flat from your appellant's Husband's account to prove the genuinity of our case.
3
ITANo.2177/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15
Usha Marazban Pithawalla
The AO erred in treating the Appellant as 'asssessee in default for the purchase of the Flat so made. 8. Furthermore, as your appellant is a simple housewife and her Husband is also working abroad on an Oil Rig with limited internet access, they did not realize that there was a notice from the Income tax Department which they need to reply to or take some professional guidance on the same they did not reply or attend to any of the proceedings. As a result, the orders were passed which they were not aware till they received an "SMS" on their phone only on 7th September, 2023. Due to this ignorance, they could not file any response at the time of the Order nor could they file an appeal in time and stop the Penalty order u/s 271(1) (c).” 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, the quantum appeal for the year under consideration has been remanded by this Tribunal back to the Ld.AO for devono consideration has vide order dated 20/05/25 in ITA no. 2095/Mum/2025. He submitted that, as the present appeal is against levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) which is consequential in nature the said appeal does not survive at this stage. 3. We have considered the submissions of the Ld.AR and hold that the present penalty appeal is premature at this stage as the quantum appeal has been remanded by this Tribunal for denovo verification vide order dated 21/05/25 in ITA no. 2095/Mum/2025. 4. Accordingly the present penalty appeal becomes infructuous. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/05/2025 (RENU JAUHRI) Judicial Member
4
ITANo.2177/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15
Usha Marazban Pithawalla
Mumbai:
Dated: 21/05/2025
Poonam Mirashi,
Stenographer
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.