PRITI BHANSALI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BHARUCH

The assessee is an individual and is not a regular filer of return of income, as she never had taxable income. Proceedings were initiated against her on the ground that her name appeared in the sale deed of an immovable property sold by her husband. However, it is an admitted fact that the property was solely owned by her husband, Shri Praveen Bhansali, who duly declared the entire long- term capital gains in his return of income. The name of the assessee was included in the property documents only for nominee purposes, as per the housing society rules. An ex-parte order under section 148A was passed on 01.04.2022, and consequential notices were uploaded on the income-tax portal. The assessee had Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– not activated her e-filing portal account earlier and activated the same for the first time on 27.04.2024, only for the purpose of Aadhaar linking at the request of her bank. It was only thereafter that she became aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Although statutory notices, including notice under section 148, were issued, the same were not communicated to the assessee. Consequently, an ex-parte assessment order was passed. The appeal against the said order was filed with delay, which was condoned by the appellate authority, and the ex-parte assessment order was set aside, accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-communication of notices. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) for alleged non-compliance of notices, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), holding that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause.