SUSHILA SUDHAKAR PINGALE,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपी ठपुणेमŐ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.869/PUN/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14
Sushila Sudhakar Pingale,
Pezari, Poynad Alibag,
Raigad – 402109. Maharashtra.
V s
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-3, Panvel.
PAN:
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil –
Addl.CIT(DR) – Virtual Hearing.
Date of hearing
15/05/2025
Date of pronouncement 26/05/2025
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.01.2025 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. The Hon CIT(A) erred in declining the prayer of the appellant to admit additional evidences u/r 46A of IT Rules 1962 and refusing to admit the additional evidences furnished during appellate proceedings,
ITA No.869/PUN/2025 [A]
2
inspite of the fact that the appellant who is a retired school teacher was unaware of the assessment proceedings and therefore was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evidences before the Id AO. The appellant prays that the additional evidences be admitted and considered in deciding the merits of the addition.
The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- as short term capital gain arising on transfer of 1/2 share in flat no. A/301, Vedashree CHS, Plot no. E-30, Sector no.3, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, instead of determining long term capital gains, after granting deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per the provisions of section 48 and levying concessional tax rate as per section of 112 of the IT Act, 1961. The addition being unjustified is required to be deleted.
The Hon CIT(A) erred in denying the appellant, exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs.14,31,056/- on account of investment in new house property at Poynad, Taluka Alibaug, Dist. Raigad. The exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be granted.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal/relief claimed at any time before the decision of the appeal.”
Submission of ld.AR :
At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed.
Findings & Analysis :
We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, as per the assessment order, Assessee had not filed Return of Income(RoI) for A.Y.2013-14. The Assessing Officer based on the information, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 20.03.2020. The AO in the assessment order has noted that ITA No.869/PUN/2025 [A]
3
Assessee had not complied the notices and hence, AO passed ex- parte order u/s.144 of the Act.
.1 The AO in the assessment order has noted that Assessee along with her husband Shri Sudhakar Pingale had sold immoveable property for a total consideration of Rs.40 lakhs vide agreement dated 09.11.2012 duly registered with Sub-