KAMLESHRANI SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-27(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY () Assessment Year: 2015-16
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
30.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment Year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
On the fac Learned Asse 1,33,53,900/ disallowing, d case and ce contrary to va should be del 2. The Appella Tax -Appeals available to ascertain the Appellant and 2. At the outset, anyone attended on application was file assessee was not therefore, same was arguments of the Ld. 3. Briefly stated, order passed u/s 14 Act’) dated 30.12.201 property as short ter claim of deduction u issuing seven notice CIT(A) and therefore available on records, observing as under: “8.3. It is see to the hearing appellant ha ITA cts and circumstances of the case and essing Officer has erred in making add - under the head Short Term Capital Ga deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the ertified document produced before him arious settled judicial decisions and bad leted. ant prays that the Learned Commissione s has not exercised the wide array him under the provisions of Income facts before confirming the additions i d the additions should be deleted. it is mentioned that despite n behalf of the assessee nor an ed, therefore, we were of th interested in prosecuting th heard ex-parte qua the assesse Departmental Representative (D facts of the case are that in 3(3 ) of the Income-tax Act, 196 17, the Assessing Officer treated rm capital gain and accordingly u/s 54F of the Act. On further s, no representation was made e, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis dismissed the effective grounds en that the appellant has not made any g notices issued. It is pertinent to menti ad stated that property was allotted Kamleshrani Sharma 2 A No. 6955/MUM/2024 in law, the dition of Rs. ain thereby e fact of the m. Same is in law and er of Income of powers Tax Act to n hands of notifying neither ny adjournment e opinion that he appeal and ee after hearing DR). the assessment 61 (in short ‘the d the sale of the y disallowed the appeal, despite e before the Ld. s of documents s of the assessee compliance ion that the to her on 05/12/2011. property was Moreover, the she had faile her on 05/12 day. Furtherm property in th dated 14.02.2 appellant th 05/12/2011 claim of the a such supporti too, no essent required to es first Appellate the additions documentary submitted to Grounds of ap 8.4. It is perti many as 7 However, the evidence in su the appellant documentary of the appell respond to an authority is o submit in sup 8.5. In view o that the natu Officer has t gains after co No infirmity is action c the A capital gains appellant doe filed by the ap 4. We have heard relevant material on contention of the sale ITA
However, on verification of the re s only transferred to the appellant on 19
e appellant's contention.cannot be acce d to explain as to how the property was 2/2011, when no such property was exist more, there is no mention regarding the a he name of appellant in the registered
2012. Under the circumstances, the conte at the property was taken over b is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted appellant cannot be accepted in the abse ing proof. During the course of appellate p tial supporting documents were furnished stablish genuineness of the claim made.
e Authority also, the appellant merely are wrongly made and never turned up evidence to satisfy the merits of the case verify the genuineness of the claims m ppeal.
inent to mention that the appellant was p opportunities during the appellate p e appellant has not produced any do upport of its claim made in grounds of ap failed to furnish proper explanation with evidence to prove her contentions during late proceedings too. Since the appella ny of the seven hearing notices sent, thi of the opinion that the appellant has no pport of her grounds.
of the above facts, it can be reasonably re o income is short capital gain and the taxed them under income from short te onsidering both factual and circumstanti s found in the order of the Assessing Offi
Assessing Officer treating the receipts as s and taxin them warrants confirm es not succeed in this ground and th Gr ppellant is hereby dismissed.”
the submission of the Ld. DR a record. We find that no evidenc e of the assessee as long term c
Kamleshrani Sharma
3
A No. 6955/MUM/2024
ecords, the 9/01/2015. epted since s allotted to tent on that allotment of agreement ention of the by her on d. The mere ence of any proceedings d which are Before the stated that p with solid e. Nothing is made in the provided as proceedings.
ocumentary ppeal. Also, h supporting g the course ant did not is appellate material to y concluded e Assessing erm capital a evidence.
icer and the s short term mation. The round No. 1
and perused the ce in support of capital gain and for subsequent dedu before the lower a supporting the sale assessee is not entitle do not find any infirm in dispute and acco grounds raised by the 5. In the result, th
Order pronoun
S
(RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 25/02/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ITA ction u/s 54F of the Act have b authorities or before us. Evi transaction as long term ca ed for deduction u/s 54F of the mity in the order of the Ld. CIT rdingly, we uphold the same.
e assessee are dismissed.
he appeal of the assessee is dism ced in the open Court on 25/0 AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Kamleshrani Sharma
4
A No. 6955/MUM/2024
been filed either idently without apital gain, the Act. Hence, we
T(A) on the issue
Accordingly the missed.
02/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai