G.P.SAVITHRI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 June 2022AY 2011-20125 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to furnish supporting materials. The CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order based on available records.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer reopened the case upon learning that the assessee's property, offered as collateral, was sold by a bank for Rs. 1,45,25,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and confirming the capital gains tax assessment when the property transfer was under challenge and no sale proceeds were received by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Hearing: 09.05.2022Pronounced: 08.06.2022

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO,, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, dated 17.10.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deciding the appeal ex-parte is wrong, illegal and opposed to the facts of the case. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) went wrong in concluding that transfer of the property took place this year; when a writ petition challenging that is pending before the High Court.

1.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) went wrong in affirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the capital gains in the hands of the assessee for this year without considering the objections raised by the assessee. 1.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having found that no portion of the sale proceeds having been received by the appellant wrong in demanding capital gains tax from the appellant. 3.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) went wrong in affirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not properly computing the cost of acquisition and improvements to the property. 3.2 The Commissioner-of Income Tax (Appeals) having seen that all the documents relating to the property is with the bank; went wrong in observing that no details were furnished.”

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 05.06.2012 calling for the return of income. In response, the assessee vide her letter dated 12.06.2012 replied that she has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 for the reason that she has not received any rental income from house property for the said assessment year and that the house property was vacant throughout the year.

2.1 However, the Assessing Officer came to know that the property of the assessee at New No.49 & 50 (Old No.19 & 20, Previous Nos. 72 & 73 and oldest Nos.81 & 82, Godown street, Chennai-600 001, bearing land and building has been sold in public auction by Bank of India to one Shri B. Mahendra Kumar & 5 others, No.7/6, Kasi Chetty Street, Chennai-600079 for a consideration of ₹.1,45,25,000/-. The assessee has offered the above property as collateral security on behalf of M/s. Emgee Brothers, No.15, Sunkuwar Agratharam Street, Chennai-600 002, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002 and the Bank has sold the property in realisation of the dues of M/s. Emgee Brothers. The assessee has not filed the return of Income admitting the above transaction as well as the capital gain arising out of the same. This property was originally acquired by the assessee on 27.09.2006 for an amount of ₹.30,00,000/-. As the capital gains on the above transaction have not been admitted by the assessee, income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Act and hence, the Assessing Officer re-opened the case to consider the same by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2013 and was duly served on the assessee on 25.04.2013. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee replied vide her letter dt. Nil as follows: “..... I have not received any income from house property for the said assessment year and also I don't have any income for that year. Hence I have not filed my Returns. .."

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2014 and in response to notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Again, the case was posted for hearing on 05.03.2015. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,15,25,000/-.

3.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Despite various opportunities afforded to the assessee, neither the assessee nor her representative appeared or filed any supporting materials before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, after considering the materials available on record, the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal on merits and confirmed the assessment order.

4.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the ex-parte order of the ld. CIT(A). None appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

5.

We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has posted five times for hearing of the appeal. However, neither the assessee nor the AR of the assessee appeared for furnished any supporting materials before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) with the materials available on record, decided the issues and dismissed the appeal. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 08th June, 2022 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →