AMTULA TASNEEM HEERA BANU,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1959/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu, a senior citizen, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 despite selling immovable property for 3.10 Crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act due to alleged escapement of income and conducted a best judgment assessment under section 144, adding 3.10 Crores under section 69A and taxing it under section 115BBE. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful as she failed to provide necessary documents to substantiate her claim for deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adhered to principles of natural justice by not allowing the assessee to submit necessary documents and thus set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792478 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: M. KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu, No.15, Big Street, Kilpauk Garden, Chennai-600 010. v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1), Chennai. [PAN: ABWPH 4386 H] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.M. Karunakaran, Adv. \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 21.05.2025 against confirming the quantum assessment; and order dated 23.05.2025 against confirming the penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu :: 2 :: 2. The brief facts are that the assessee claims to be a senior citizen of around 70 years old and admittedly didn’t file any return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19. The AO noticed that despite the assessee having sold immovable property for a consideration of ₹3.10 Crs. [after deducting TDS] didn’t file any RoI, formed a view that there was escapment of income; and consequently, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2022 and framed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act, finding no response from assessee to his several notices. Thus, the AO added ₹3.10 Crs. u/s.69A of the Act and taxed it u/s.115BBE of the Act and raised a demand of ₹3,66,49,675/- by passing assessment order dated 15.02.2023 u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee is noted to have brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that she sold her immovable property for ₹3.10 Crs. on which TDS was duly deducted at ₹3,10,000/-. According to assessee, from the ibid sale consideration she received, she had invested ₹3,07,00,000/- in purchasing another immovable property and hence, claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. And since she has promptly invested the gain from the transaction in another immovable property, there was no tax liability left to be offered for tax, she didn’t file the ITR/RoI. The Ld.CIT(A) didn’t entertain the aforesaid claim of the assessee (section 54 deduction) on the plea that assessee failed to (i) file the certified copy of the Sale-Deed Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu :: 3 :: of her property, by virtue of it she received an amount of ₹3.10 Crs.; and (ii) assessee failed to file the certified true copy of document to prove that assessee had made investment in another immovable property. Further, according to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee’s fresh claim (deduction u/s.54F) can’t be entertained since the assessee didn’t file any application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules‘) for admission of fresh evidences. Therefore, he rejected the claim made by the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 21.05.2025, the assessee filed ITA No.1959/Chny/2025. 4. Meanwhile, the AO is noted to have initiated penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act and since, he has made addition u/s.69A of the Act of ₹3.10 Crs. vide assessment order dated 23.02.2023 [passed u/s.144 of the Act], the AO issued penalty notice u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act on 15.02.2022. And having noted that assessee didn’t respond to his notice, he passed an ex parte order levying penalty of ₹18,60,000/- [computed @10% on the value of tax payable u/s.115BBE(1)(i) of the Act of ₹1,86,000,00/-]. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty vide order dated 23.05.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal i.e. ITA No.1960/Chny/2025. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu :: 4 :: 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the AO has passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act by making addition u/s.69A of the Act of the entire consideration received from the sale of an immovable property to the tune of ₹3.10 Crs. Likewise, he has levied a penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act of ₹18,60,000/-. The Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have confirmed both the actions. The main grievance of the assessee is that the AO has framed the assessment without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. In order to demonstrate such a contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the notices were sent to the e-mail of the firm which was dissolved in the year 2015. Hence, according to the assessee, she was in the dark about the assessment proceedings going on against her. Likewise, while penalty proceedings were going on, the AO had given time to respond till 23.05.2025. However, it was pointed out that the AO hurriedly passed penalty on the same day i.e. 23.05.2025 before the assessee could upload the reply. Further, it was brought to our notice that on appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had duly filed the copy of the Sale- Deed (proving sale of her immovable property) and agreement for purchase of property (for claiming deduction u/s54F) as well as copy of bank statement, computation of total income with capital gains etc., but the Ld.CIT(A) on hyper/flimsical technical grounds has rejected the same. [i.e. failure to file application under Rule 46A, certified true copy (CTC) of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu :: 5 :: sale of immovable property and CTC of documents to prove investments, non-filing of affidavit]. Such an impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) can’t be countenanced by us for the reason that if the Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee failed to file certified true copy of the Sale Deed/Purchase Deed then he ought to have given opportunity to the assessee to file/upload the same. Likewise, if he felt that the assessee failed to file the application under Rule 46A along with an affidavit, then in all fairness, he should have asked the assessee to do so. Without doing so, he ought not to have rejected the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee wherein assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, we find the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) to be fragile for non-adherence to natural justice. Hence, we set aside the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). The assessee is directed to file/upload all the relevant documents to prove its claim without fail and failing which, the AO to take action in accordance to law. 6. Since the quantum assessment has been restored back to the file of the AO, the penalty levied doesn’t survive and is cancelled. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu :: 6 :: 7. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th day of December, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "