ANITHA MYADAM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
[“CIT(A)”] National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated
17.01.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (“the Act”) dated 17.03.2022 for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
3
Anitha Myadam
Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information that the assessee during the subject year had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 53,57,921/-, but had not disclosed the long term capital gain (“LTCG”) arising on such sale transaction in her return of income, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was served upon the assessee. 4. As the assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 and filed her return of income nor complied with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2021, 18.01.2022 and 01.02.2022, therefore, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.02.2022, which too was not complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO was constrained to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. 5. As is discernible from the record, the AO observed that the assessee had during the subject year executed a sale deed No.2036/2015 dated 08.05.2015, but had not disclosed any consequential LTCG on the said sale transaction in her return of 4 Anitha Myadam income. Accordingly, the AO held the amount of Rs. 53,57,921/- (supra) as LTCG in the hands of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. Although, it was, inter-alia, the claim of the assessee that her name was mentioned in the sale deed, only as a consenting party, i.e. as a legal heir of one of the owners of the land to avoid any future litigations, but the AO losing sight of the said material fact, had wrongly assessed LTCG of 53,57,921/- in her hands. However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Also, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee at Column 12 of her memorandum of appeal in “Form 35” had stated that certain fresh additional evidence was filed under Rule 46A. The CIT(A) observed that as the assessee had failed to substantiate as to why the additional evidence was not filed before the AO, observed that there was no justification for her to produce the same before him. Accordingly, the CIT(A), after refraining from admitting the additional evidence for the reason that the assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions contemplated
5
Anitha Myadam under Rule 46A, approved the addition of Rs. 53,57,921/- made by the AO and dismissed the appeal.
8. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Shri A. Srinivas, CA, the learned
Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, took us through the copy of the sale deed dated 08.05.2015, Page Nos. 8 to 50 of the APB. The Ld.AR submitted that the sale deed referred to the transfer of property, viz., part and parcel of the open land in Survey
No.224, within the Municipal limits of GHMC, Ward No.9 situated at Ibrahimbagh (V), Golconda (M), Hyderabad, that was acquired by virtue of a registered partition deed, vide document No.5678 of 2013, Book-1 dated 31.12.2012, registered in the office of the Joint
Sub-