PUNAM VISHNURAJ MOTWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-27(2)(5), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY () & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA () Assessment Year: 2011-12
PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 18/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12. 2. In the above c appeal for A.Y. 2011- “1. The Learned C in confirming Penalt condone a delay w service of notices. 2. The Learned in confirming Pena appellant served wit served had been so assessment was fra The Appellant crave aforesaid grounds of 3. The AR of app senior citizen and sh Act. She has never f with Income Tax por invested the entire immovable property. address” to Income T old address and she couldn’t respond to t 144 is still pending, may be given to her has argued that in v because of continuo shall be sustained. Puna ITA N captioned appeal, the appellan -12 with the following Grounds o CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances ty that AO had levied u/s 271(1)(b), by which itself was non-existent, when com CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances alty that AO had levied u/s 271(1)(b) th any notice as the residence to which n old, precisely on receipt of information of amed. es leave to amend, alter, modify or omit f Appeal as occasion may arise or deman pellant has submitted that the he doesn’t know the intricacies filed Return of Income nor she rtal. She sold an old immovab e sale consideration by acq As the appellant has not give Tax Department, the notices w was never aware of these notice he same. As the main appeal u , it was requested that one m r to substantiate her case. Per iew of the detailed order of Ld. ous non-compliance of assess am Vishuraj Motwani 2 No. 5974/MUM/2024 nt has filed an of Appeal : and in law refusing to mputed from and in law when the notices were f which the any of the nd.” e appellant is a s of Income Tax e had registered le property and quiring another en her “changed ere sent to that es, consequently /s. 143(3) r.w.s. more opportunity contra, Ld. DR CIT(A) and also ee, the penalty
After hearing th is given one more o reasons: a) The appellant i responding to th because she ha the Department has not furnishe b) The main appe pending with L appeal may ha sense, if it is appellant would 5. Accordingly, th Department on the d 6. As it was held t the case is remitted dispose of the main decide this penalty ap
Puna
ITA N he rival submissions, it is decid opportunity to the appellant fo is a senior citizen and her bo he notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) a as not received any of these not t could not be found fault sinc ed “new address”.
eal which deals with Capital
Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication an ave some bearing on the main held that these is no taxable d have better chance to substant he appellant is directed to c isposal of main appeal and this hat appellant would be given on to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A appeal of leviability of Capital ppeal.
am Vishuraj Motwani
3
No. 5974/MUM/2024
ded the assessee or the following onafides for not are not in doubt tices. Of course, ce the appellant l Gains is still nd thus penalty n appeal in the e income, then tiate her case.
co-operate with penalty appeal.
ne more chance,
A) is directed to Gains and then
The appeal of ap
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHAUD
JUDICIAL MEM
Mumbai;
Dated: 21/01/2025
Poonam Mirashi,
Stenographer
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Puna
ITA N ppellant is allowed for statistical ced in the open Court on 21/ DHARY)
(OMKARESHWA
MBER
ACCOUNTANT ded to :
BY ORDE
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu am Vishuraj Motwani
4
No. 5974/MUM/2024
l purposes.
/01/2025. d/-
AR CHIDARA)
T MEMBER
ER, gistrar) umbai