RAMA SIVARAMAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Years 2013-2014. Since the appeals involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of a common order.

We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 04/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned

The facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal in brief are that reassessment proceedings were initiate in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 on the base of AIR- Information with the Assessing Officer to the effect that the Assessee had sold immovable property during the relevant previous year for a consideration of INR.63,50,000/- which has not been offered tax in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2013- 2014. The Assessee did not comply with the notices initially issued by Assessing Officer. However, the Assessee filed Submission, dated 20/08/2021, in response to show-cause notice dated 17/08/2021 proposing variation/addition. The Assessing Officer was not convince with the aforesaid submissions on account of lack of supporting evidence and therefore, proceeded to assessee the entire sale consideration of INR.63,50,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 02/09/2021, passed under Section 147 of the Act

Being aggrieved the Assessee challenged the above addition in appeal before the Learned CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessee was a home-maker and during the relevant previous year did not have any taxable Income. Entire sale consideration from the transfer of immovable property under consideration was disclosed by her husband in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. Vide Submission, dated 20/08/2021, the aforesaid fact along with supporting documents were filed during the Assessment Proceedings, however, the Assessing Officer failed to take the same into consideration. It was contended that taxation of same capital gains income in the hands of the Assessee and her husband would amount to double taxation. However, the aforesaid submission did not find favour with the Assessment Year 2013-2014

By way of Ground No. 3 it has been contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider the Submission, dated 20/08/2021, filed by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings. Similarly, in Ground No. 4, 5 and 6, it has been contented on behalf of the Assessee that even learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the correct facts and dismissed the appeal without granting the Assessee sufficient opportunity. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had reiterated the stand taken before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). It was contended that the learner CIT(A) has passed the order dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee without considering the information made available and without issuing an show cause notice to the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessee was constrained to file copy of purchase/sale agreements relating to transfer of immovable properties in support of its contentions as additional evidence before the Tribunal. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the application for admission of additional evidence forming part of the paper-book filed by the Assessee.

Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee had been non-compliant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. Since the submission made by the Assessee were not supported by documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) were justified in making/sustaining the addition on account of capital gains since the Assessment Year 2013-2014

We have considered the rival submission and have perused the material on record.

The case set up by the Assessee is that the entire sale consideration arising from the transfer of immovable property under consideration has already been disclosed and offered to tax by the husband of the Assessee. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had referred to the Submission, dated 20/08/2021, and application seeking admission of additional evidence accompanied by agreement relating to purchase/sale of property. We note that the Learned CIT(A) appeal has noted that the Assessing Officer had rejected the contention of the Assessee that capital gains were not liable to tax in the hands of the Assessee observing that the Assessee had not furnished sale deed with regard to purchase/sale of immovable property. Since the Assessee did not respond to the notice of hearing issue during the appellate proceedings, the Learned CIT(A) rejected the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. However, on perusal of findings retuned by the Learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of the order impugned, we find that the Learned CIT(A) has recorded that name of the Assessee was mentioned in the uploaded copy of purchase and sale deed. Thus, we note that the Learned CIT(A) had returned findings which are contradictory. Further, even the finding returned by the CIT(A) that the Assessee had not furnished any evidence to show that the husband of the Assessee had offered to tax consideration received from transfer of immovable property is contrary to the material on record. We note that the Assessing Officer had in paragraph 2 of the Assessment Order recorded submission of the Assessee. It was specifically recorded by the Assessing Officer that a copy of return of income filed by the husband of the Assessee (i.e. Mr. Mangesh Iyer) Assessment Year 2013-2014

In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Next, we will take up the appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 04/08/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 16/03/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013- 2014. 13. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.6947/Mum/2025:

We have considered the rival submission and have perused the material on record.

The Assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty of 30,000/- levied upon the Assessee under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act in relation to assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. We have already set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order, dated 02/09/2021, for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. We have noted hereinabove that the Assessee had filed Submission, dated 20/08/2021, before the Learned CIT(A) which were not taken into consideration by the Learned CIT(A). Thus, while the assessee had not responded to notices dated 29/09/2020, 05/07/2021 and 07/08/2021 issued by the Assessing Officer, subsequently, the Assessee had filed Submission, dated 20/08/2021 in response to notice dated 17/08/2021. During the appellate proceedings it was explained that the Assessee responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer which were served electronically as soon as the Assessee got knowledge of the same. It was submitted that non- Assessment Year 2013-2014

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed.

In conclusions, ITA No.6946/Mum/2025 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.6947/Mum/2025is allowed.

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"/ The CIT

"धान आयकर आयु" / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.