SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETHSmt.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal/ Shri Aaksh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 11.03.2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2565/MUM/2025(AY: 2016-17)

Smt. Shree Jain, 17/1, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. PAN/GIR No:AARPJ4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal/ Shri Aaksh Kumar Respondent by Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.03.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the learned

Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated

18.03.2025, for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17.

The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under:

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 owing to the fact that the prescribed conditions therein are not satisfied 2. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of 4,56,13,937/-made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of Short term capital gains on the basis of invalid Sale Deed dated 7-8-2015 entered between 1

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain (i) Smt. Shree Jain (Appellant) and (ii) M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd. for agreed sale consideration of 8,96,00,000/- in respect of a land at Village- Devanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalure, without receiving any effective payment of the agreed consideration post registration of the Sale Deed which turned to be un-fructified, void and invalid due to breach of contract by not making payment of agreed consideration by the purchaser. b) The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:- i) the Appellant has not received any consideration on sale of the land although the document was registered but such sale could not be considered as valid sale and gains as per the document were not real because neither consideration was received by the Appellant (ie. seller) nor the possession was handed over to the purchaser; ii) the transfer of the property was not complete nor any income has accrued to the Appellant, iii) the land was effectively sold subsequently during the previous year relevant to Α.Υ.2019-20 and the Appellant has shown Long term capital gains of 3,02,78,182/- as income in the return of income for the A.Y 2019-20, and iv) there cannot be tax on gains of the property for two times on sale of the same land. c) In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such addition the Ld. CIT(A) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory. The Appellant denies her liability for such interest. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground raised disputing initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is premature. The Appellant denies her liability for such penalty.

Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income for

AY 2016-17 on 26.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.45,270/-. The case was

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain processed u/s 143(1) on 24.11.2016 and no regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the

Act was made. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice

u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2021. In response, assessee filed return

on 30.04.2021 declaring the same total income of Rs.45,270/-. The reasons for

reopening was provided to the assessee according to which the assessee had

sold landed property for a consideration of Rs.8,96,00,000/- on 07.08.2015 to

M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd (SLEPL). The purchaser had also deducted

TDS of Rs.8,96,000/- @ 1% of the total consideration. The assessee had not

declared the capital gain on the sale of land in her return of income. The

assessee explained that after executing the sale deed, the purchaser had not

honored the cheque. Further, assessee had also sold some other lands and all

put together, she received Rs.25 crore from the purchaser. Subsequently, the

purchaser transferred 84 flats on 08.01.2019 and the appellant had declared the

resultant capital gain in the year of receipt i.e. AY 2019-20. The AO did not

accept the explanation of the assessee and observed that she had stated many

things to avoid short-term capital gain on sale of the impugned land. The AO

also observed that in the sale deed dated 07.08.2015, the assessee has

acknowledged sale consideration of Rs.8.96 crore as full and final settlement.

She further transferred, assigned and set over all her rights, title and interests in

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain the property free from all encumbrances to and in favour of the purchaser

(SLEPL).

3.1 The AO also found that TDS @ 1% amounting to Rs.8.96,000 on the sale

consideration Rs.8,96,00,000/- has been deducted and deposited in government

treasury by the said purchaser. Even Form 26AS for AY 2016-17 of the assessee

shows the above transaction and TDS. The assessee has also not refunded back

the TDS amount of Rs.8.96,000 to the said buyer, if the sale did not materialize.

The AO also observed that the Reserve Bank of India has officially stopped the

barter system from 1.12.2015. The assessee neither filed duly registered

“cancellation deed" against sale deed dated 07.08.2015 nor filed any registered

"exchange deed" showing exchange of her impugned land with the specific flats

received in exchange, showing area and valuation of the flats against the area

and valuation of the land. The AO referred to section 2(42A) of the Act which

defines a short-term capital asset, i.e. a capital asset held for 36 months or less.

In this case, the purchase date of said Land was 03.09.2012 as per registered

“Sale Deed” and the date of sale was 07.08.2015 as per the registered “Sale

Deed” dated 07.08.2015. Since the period of holding was less than 36 months, it

was a "short-term capital gain”. The AO, accordingly, computed STCG of

Rs.4,56,13,937/-. He also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

case of CIT vs. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd., 138 ITR 195 (Del.) where it was held that

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain capital gain arising from transfer of capital asset is chargeable to tax in the year

of transfer, even though consideration was not ascertained and was in dispute.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

The assessee raised grounds on validity of reopening as well as merits of

addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds on both issues. Regarding the

reopening, he observed that there was no assessment u/s 143(3) and the return

of the assessee was only processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. He dismissed the

ground by observing as under:-

“6.2. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), "At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief.” “6.3 In 411 ITR 321, Avirat Star Homes Venture (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (Bom HC), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under in para 10. "In our opinion, the information supplied by the investigation wing to the Assessing Officer thus formed a prima facie basis to enable Assessing Officer to form a belief of income chargeable tax having escaped assessment. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.” “6.4. Guidance is also drawn from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of DCIT vs MR Shah Logistics P Ltd (arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22921/2019 dated 28.03.2022)”

“21. In Phool Chand BajrangLal & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors after reviewing the previous case law, and concluding that a valid reopening is one, preceded by specific, reliable and relevant information, and that the sufficiency of such reasons is not subject to judicial review the only caveat being that the court can examine the record, if such material existed.” 23. It is therefore, clear that the basis for a valid re-opening of assessment should be availability of tangible material, which can lead the AO to scrutinize the returns for the previous assessment year in question, to determine, whether a notice under Section 147 is called for.

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain 29. Another aspect which should not be lost sight of is that the information or "Tangible material which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large. the revenue would then get to examine the retums for the previous year, on a clean slate as it were. Therefore, to hold- as the High Court did, in this case, that since the assessee may have a reasonable explanation, is not a ground for quashing a notice under Section 147. As long as there is objective tangible material (in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." 6.5 Further, in the case of the assessee return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and hence there was no question of change of opinion and therefore on this basis, the notice issued was valid. This aspect is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC).” 4.1 Regarding the merits of the addition the CIT(A) dismissed the grounds

taken up by the assessee by giving the following findings:

“7.3. Facts of the case and submission of the assessee have been examined. It is seen that the assessee had purchased a property of 03 acres 20 guntha in Survey No. 416/1 at Devanahalli Village, KasabaHobli, Devanhalli Taluk, Bangalore for consideration of Rs. 4,37,50,000/- on 03.09.2012. Thereafter, the assessee had sold this land to M/s. Sanchaya Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd (SLEPL) vide sale deed dated 07.08.2015 for Rs. 8,96,00,000/- The SLEPL has also deducted TDS of Rs. 8,96,000/- Though the assessee has mentioned that she has not received any consideration, in the sale deed it was mentioned that assessee has given acknowledgment for sale consideration of Rs. 8.96,00,000/- Further, even though the assessee has submitted that she has not claimed TDS, it does not change the character of the transactions. Though the assessee has mentioned that in the absence of payment, the sale deed turned out to be void, she has neither filed cancellation deed against the sale deed dated 07.08.2015 nor has filed exchange deed showing exchange of the land with the specific flats received in exchange showing area and valuation of each vis a vis land area and valuation. Further, the assessee has not refunded back TDS of Rs. 8,96,000/- to the buyers if the sale did not materialize. Also, the RBI has officially stopped barter system from 01.12.2015 The assessee has not able to explain to and substantiate on one to one basis, the plots, its area and its valuation with the flats which are stated to be have 6

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain been received in exchange, the area of said flats and valuation of said flats. 7.4. In view of the above facts, it is seen that the assessee has not shown short term capital gain of Rs. 4,56,13,937/- in respect of sale of land on 07.08.2015. Further, in the decision of CIT v/s Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd (1982) 138 ITR 195 (Delhi), it was held that capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset is chargeable to tax during the previous year in which the transfer took place, even though the consideration was not ascertained and was in dispute. Therefore, addition of Rs. 4,56,13,937/- made by the AO as short-term capital gain into the hands of the assessee is confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present

appeal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book enclosing therein the written

submission before the lower authorities and details submitted to them. He has

relied on the submission made before the lower authorities. He submitted that

in making the assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act, the AO has considered all the

facts and issues relating to the income shown in the return of income including

the STCG. The assessment was reopened without disclosing any reason. He has

reiterated the arguments made before the CIT(A).

5.1 As regards the merits of the addition, the Ld. AR has made similar

submission as was made before the AO and CIT(A). He submitted that though

TDS was deducted by the purchaser but the appellant has not claimed any credit

for such TDS. He also submitted that there was no barter exchange but land was

sold but sale consideration was received and subsequently certain flats were

received by the assessee. Since no consideration was received in the impugned

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain assessment year and the flats were received in AY2019-20, the assessee has

rightly shown long-term capital gain of Rs.11,25,61,056/- in AY 2019-20. The Ld.

AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Raj Rani

Devi Ramna vs. CIT, 201 ITR 1032 (Pat.) He therefore, requested the addition

made should be deleted.

On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue relied on the orders of

lower authorities. He submitted that only processing was due u/s 143(1) of the

Act and there was credible information to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the

Act because assessee had not offered the STCG. He submitted that the parcels of

land were purchased on 03.09.2012/13.06.2013 and were sold on 07.08.2015.

The purchaser has also deducted TDS of Rs.8,96,000/- and deposited the same

in the government account. There was a valid transfer of the capital asset by

way of a registered sale deed. Therefore, there was short-term capital gain

because the period of holding was less than 36 months.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We

have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The

undisputed facts in the instant case are that the assessee had purchased land of

3 acres 20 gunthas at village Devanahali, Bangalore on 03.09.2012/13.06.2013

for Rs.4,37,50,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee sold this land to M/s Sanchaya

Land and Estate Pvt Ltd. (SLEPL) vide sale deed dated 07.08.2015 for

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain Rs.8,96,00,000/-. SLEPL deducted TDS of Rs.8,96,000/-. However, assessee have

not shown any short-term capital gain on the impugned sale. Therefore, the

case was reopened but in the return in response to notice u/s 148, the assessee

has again not offered any capital gains.

7.1 In ground No.1, the appellant has challenged validity of reopening u/s

147 of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the submissions made before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A), after detailed discussion, dismissed the ground by holding as under:-

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain is at large. the revenue would then get to examine the retums for the previous year, on a clean slate as it were. Therefore, to hold- as the High Court did, in this case, that since the assessee may have a reasonable explanation, is not a ground for quashing a notice under Section 147. As long as there is objective tangible material (in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." 6.5 Further, in the case of the assessee return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and hence there was no question of change of opinion and therefore on this basis, the notice issued was valid. This aspect is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC).” 7.2. We find that the CIT(A) has discussed in detail the subject issue and

authorities precedents and has given reasons for dismissing the ground. It is not

in dispute that there was no regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The

return filed by the assessee was only processed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore,

the argument of the assessee that the AO has considered all the facts and issues

relating to the income shown in the return of income including STCG is not

correct. The AO had credible information that the appellant did not disclose

short-term capital gain on sale of capital asset being land in her return of

income. The CIT(A) has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (supra), MR Shah Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

(supra), Phoolchand Bajranlal & Ors. (supra) and decision of the jurisdictional

High Court in case of Avirat Star Homes Venture (P) Ltd. (supra) and held that

there was no change of opinion and notice was validly issued. The Ld. AR has not

been able to controvert the finding of the CIT(A) by bringing on record any new

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain facts or decisions. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which we

confirm. Accordingly, the ground is dismissed.

Ground No.2 is regarding addition of Rs.4,56,13,937/- under the head of

short-term capital gain. The facts of the case and the reasons for such additions

by the AO and finding of the CIT(A) confirming the addition have already been

discussed and hence not repeated here. There is no dispute that the appellant

had purchased the impugned land on 13.06.2013. Copy of the sale deed is at

pages 99 to 110 of the paper book. It was purchased for a consideration of

Rs.4,37,50,000/- The said property was sold vide registered sale deed dated

07.08.2015. Copy of the sale deed is at pages 137 to 147 of the paper book. The

capital asset was, therefore, held for less than 36 months. The vendor was the

appellant and the purchaser of the property was SLEPL. The sale consideration

was Rs.8,96,00,000/-. It is stated in the said registered sale deed that the entire

sale consideration was paid by the purchaser vide cheque No.242107 drawn on

Axis Bank, RT Nagar, Bangalore and Rs.8,96,000/- was deducted as TDS u/s

194(IA) of the Act. It is further stated in the sale deed as under:-

“NOW THIS DEED OF SALE WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:

In pursuance of the foregoing and in consideration of the PURCHASER hereby paying the entire sale price and consideration of Rs. 8,96,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores and Ninety Six Lakhs only) to the VENDOR for the purchase of the SCHEDULE B PROPERTY as detailed below:

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain a) A sum of Rs. 8,87,04,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Eighty Seven Lakhs and Four... Thousand Only) by Cheque No.242107 drawn on Axis Bank, RT Nagar Branch, Bangalore. b) A sum of Rs.8,96,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ninety-Six Thousand Only) by way of tax deduction at source under section 194 IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 remitted to the Income-tax Department. the receipt of which the VENDOR do hereby acknowledge in full and final settlement and acquit the PURCHASER from making any further payments whatsoever, the VENDOR do hereby GRANTS, CONVEYS, ASSIGNS, TRANSFERS, SELLS AND SETS OVER all her right, title and interest in the SCHEDULE B PROPERTY together with all the easements, advantages, liberties thereto held and enjoyed absolutely free from all encumbrances of whatsoever description TO AND IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER herein and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the VENDOR into or upon the same and every part thereof TO AND IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same as the sole and absolute owner thereof for themselves, successors, executors, assigns, administrators and legal representatives absolutely and forever together with title deeds, writings, documents and all other evidences of title.”

8.1 It is clear from the above that the property was duly transferred vide sale

deed dated 07.08.2015. There was a valid transfer of a capital asset, being the

impugned land, in the instant case u/s 2(47) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, 340 ITR

1 (SC) held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred or

conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Subsequently, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, again, in the case of Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh

Chand & Anrs, Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012, dated 01.09.2025, after examining

Sections 5 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and surveying the earlier 12

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain decision in Suraj Lamp and Industries (Supra), has reiterated that in the case of

tangible immovable property, transfer of ownership can be effected only by a

duly stamped and registered instrument of conveyance. In the present case, the

capital asset (land) was sold by a registered sale deed. Therefore, there is a valid

transfer of the property by the assessee on 07.08.2015. Under the Income-tax

Act, capital gains are taxable in the year in which the transfer of the capital asset

takes place regardless of when the actual sale consideration is received. The

right to receive sale consideration arising from a completed transfer triggers

capital gains tax even if the money is paid in instalments or later. For immovable,

property transfer is complete upon registration of the sale deed, handover of

the possession or when the buyer is given the rights to the property, even if full

amount is not received. Income is taxed when it is received or accurred,

meaning thereby that the accrual of the right to receive the money is enough. In

the instant case, the appellant has duly transferred the property by way of a

registered sale deed dated 07.08.2015 (AY 2016-17). Therefore, the right to

receive the consideration has accrued to the assessee. As stated by the AO and

CIT(A), no registered cancellation deed or registered exchange deed was

produced by the appellant. No such document was also submitted to us. Hence,

there was a valid transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act and the AO has rightly made

additions of the resultant STCG.

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain 8.2 The ratio in case of Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna vs. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 1032

(PAT) relied upon by the Ld. AR is not applicable because in that case there was a

condition precedent as to the payment of consideration. However, in the instant

case, there is no such condition that the sale would be effective only on

payment of entire consideration. The registered deed and the relevant part

extracted above does not put any such restrictive condition on the transfer of

the immovable properties. In fact, it was made clear that entire consideration

was received and all rights in the land were transferred to the purchaser. Hence,

the decision relied upon would not come to the rescue of the assessee. On the

other hand, in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases

of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v.

Suresh Chand & Anrs, (supra), the transfer is complete. The law declared by

Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding an all Courts and Tribunals in India, as per

Article 141 of the Constitution. We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

dismissed the SLP (460 ITR 493) against the order of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in

case of CIT vs. Harbour View 409 ITR 599 (Ker.) where it was held that when

pursuant to agreement to sale, possession of land was handed over by the

assessee and sale consideration was received, provisions of section 2(47) of the

Act would apply and mere fact that contract was subsequently terminated by

mutual consent, would not improve case of the assessee to wriggle out of the

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain preview of section 2(47) of the Act. In view of the above facts and authoritative

precedents, there was liability to pay short term capital gain tax because the

property was held for a period of less than 36 months. We find no infirmity in

the order of CIT(A).

8.3 As regards the claim of the assessee that the LTCG capital gain arose on

receipt of 84 flats from the SLEPL in lieu of sale amount in AY 2019-20, there is

no legal basis for such claim. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC), two principles deductible from section

4(1) are: (i) that the tax is levied on the total income of the assessee and (ii) each

previous years is a distinct unit of time for the purpose of assessment, and the

profits made or liabilities or losses incurred before or after the relevant previous

year is wholly immaterial in assessing the profits of that year unless there is

statutory provision to the contrary. Therefore, the income offered in AY 2019-20

by the appellant is not material in making the assessment of total income in the

subject AY 2016-17. The AO shall independently determine such income in

accordance with law in the year in which it has been offered. We are not

expressing any opinion on the said issue in this order. In the result, we hold that

the AO has correctly taxed the income as sale of land as STCG, which was rightly

confirmed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground is dismissed.

ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain

The next ground is levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.

Levy of interest under the above provisions of the Act are mandatory, as held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 (SC).

Hence, the ground is dismissed.

10.

The next ground is initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the

Act. Only the penalty proceedings have been initiated and penalty has not yet

been levied. Therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) that the ground is premature

in nature cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the ground is dismissed.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 11.03.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 11.03.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI