JHANSI LAKSHMI RAMANADHAM,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 886/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, an elderly lady, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which dismissed her appeal ex parte. The core dispute pertains to the assessment of capital gains from the sale of a property jointly owned with her children, where the entire sale consideration was assessed in her hands alone. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented in earlier proceedings and that there was prima facie injustice in the assessment, warranting a fresh examination of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792158 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others, Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by L/Rs & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SANDHYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

" ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 1 of 12 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.886/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Hyderabad PAN:ACBPR3566K Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Sandhya राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 30.05.2024 for the A.Y 2015-16. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 292 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 2 of 12 an elderly lady aged about 81 years, who is not acquainted with the online income-tax portal and is heavily dependent on consultants for handling tax matters. The assessee’s both children reside in the USA, and therefore the assessee frequently travels abroad to meet them. Considering her advanced age and lack of familiarity with online procedures, she had entrusted her tax consultant to attend to all income-tax proceedings. However, the consultant failed to inform her about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing her appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that on 26.12.2024, an amount of Rs.1 crore was recovered by the Revenue from the assessee’s bank account. At that time, the assessee had no knowledge that the said recovery was consequent to the dismissal of her appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee left India on 16.01.2025, and only during her stay abroad in April 2025 she came to know that her appeal had been dismissed. Immediately thereafter, she attempted to contact her consultant but received no response. Owing to her age and dependence on others, she faced additional difficulty in coordinating from abroad. Consequently, she engaged a new consultant in May 2025, and the present appeal was filed on 19.05.2025. 3. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee along with her two children had jointly sold a property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7 crores, as reflected in the registered sale deed wherein all three individuals were shown as vendors and had received their respective shares of consideration. However, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) assessed the entire sales consideration of Rs.7 crores in the hands of the assessee alone, ignoring the clear factual position. This has resulted in gross injustice. Considering her age, lack of technical knowledge, and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 3 of 12 dependence on others, it was prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the assessee herself admitted in her affidavit that she became aware of the recovery of Rs.1 crore on 26.12.2024, but the appeal was filed only on 19.05.2025, nearly five months thereafter. For this period also, no sufficient explanation has been furnished. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by L/Rs & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018, the Ld. DR submitted that delay cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause and that the assessee has failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay should not be condoned and the appeal deserves dismissal on limitation. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the material available on record including the case law relied upon. In this regard, we have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 4 of 12 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 5 of 12 6. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the assessee is an 81-year-old lady, not conversant with online procedures and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 6 of 12 dependent on others for handling tax matters. Her children reside abroad, and she frequently travels overseas. The assessee was unaware of the dismissal of her appeal until April 2025, and the chronology demonstrates that the delay was not deliberate but arose due to circumstances genuinely beyond her control, compounded by her age, limited mobility, and reliance on her consultant. Further, on examination of the registered sale deed (page no. 36 to 45 of the paper book) reveals that the property was jointly sold by the assessee and her two children. Nevertheless, the Ld. AO assessed the entire sale consideration of Rs.7 crores in the hands of the assessee alone, which prima facie reflects an apparent injustice that necessitates examination on merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds. 7. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others (Supra) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by L/Rs & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (Supra) are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the delay was attributable to negligence and lack of bona fide explanation, and the parties had failed to show sufficient cause. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay. In contrast, in the present case, the assessee has clearly demonstrated sufficient cause, supported by detailed facts i.e. her age of 81 years, her dependence on the consultant, unfamiliarity with online proceedings, frequent travel abroad, and immediate steps taken upon gaining knowledge of the dismissal. These circumstances show that the delay was neither intentional nor negligent. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 7 of 12 26311/2024, dated 31st January 2025, has held that a justice- oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the totality of circumstances, particularly the assessee’s advanced age, dependence on others, bona fide conduct, and the prima facie injustice in assessment, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 8 of 12 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2015–16 on 30.08.2015, admitting a total income of Rs.3,75,800/- . During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee, along with her two children sold an immovable property for a total consideration of Rs.7 crores. The assessee declared in her return of income that she held only a one-third share in the said property and accordingly admitted her share of capital gain. In her computation, the assessee claimed selling expenses of Rs.14,54,022/-, indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.10,49,953/- and indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs.3,04,99,447/-. She thus worked out her share of capital gain at Rs.1,47,98,631/-. Out of this, she claimed deduction of Rs.50 lakhs under section 54EC and Rs.98,17,200/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.09.2016. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee could not produce adequate documentary evidence in support of her claim of holding only one-third share in the said property. The Ld. AO further observed that no satisfactory evidence had been produced in respect of the selling expenses claimed at Rs.14,54,022/-, nor for the indexed cost of improvement claimed at Rs.3,04,99,447/-. The Ld. AO also recorded that against the deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.98,17,200/-, the assessee could substantiate only an investment of Rs.63,20,000/-. In the absence of acceptable evidence, the Ld. AO proceeded to compute the entire sale consideration of Rs.7 crores in the hands of the assessee alone and assessed the capital gain at Rs.5,76,30,047/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 9 of 12 Consequently, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Ld. AO on 29.12.2017 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,80,05,847/-. 10. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed ex parte by the Ld. CIT(A). 11. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee thereafter filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the core dispute in the present appeal pertains to the denial of various claims relating to capital gains, including the assessee’s claim of one-third share in the property as well as her claims towards selling expenditure, cost of improvement, and deductions under sections 54 of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee had entrusted the appellate proceedings to her earlier consultant, who failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). As a result, the appeal was dismissed without adequate representation. The consultant also did not properly explain the basis of the assessee’s claim that she held only a one-third share in the property, due to which the Ld. AO erroneously proceeded to tax the entire sale consideration of Rs.7 crores in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was unable to furnish certain documentary evidence at the time of assessment, including evidence relating to the selling expenditure, cost of improvement, and proof of investment for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act. The Ld. AR emphasized that the assessee is now in possession of all relevant documents and is willing to produce them before the Ld. AO. In support of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 10 of 12 assessee’s claim of joint ownership, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of the sale deed placed at page nos. 36 to 45 of the paper book and submitted that the sale deed categorically states that the property was owned by three persons, including the assessee, and that the assessee had received only Rs.3,00,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.7,00,00,000/-. Thus, the assessee’s one-third share is undisputed from the face of the registered document. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO so that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to produce all supporting evidences and the correct computation of capital gain may be carried out. 12. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the request for remand and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been provided to the assessee at both assessment as well as appellate stages. The assessee failed to avail those opportunities, and therefore, according to the Ld. DR, there is no justification for restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. AO. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the material placed on record. On going through the registered sale deed (page nos. 36 to 45 of the paper book), it is evident that the said sale deed has been executed by three persons, the total sale consideration is recorded as Rs.7 crores and it is clearly reflected that the assessee received only Rs.3 crores. This factual position emerges directly from the sale deed itself. Despite this documentary evidence, the Ld. AO has computed the entire sale consideration in the hands of the assessee, which, on the face of it, does not align with the details contained in the registered conveyance deed. We further observe Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 11 of 12 that the assessee could not produce relevant evidence before the Ld. AO to substantiate her claims towards selling expenditure, indexed cost of improvement and deduction under section 54 of the Act. The assessee now asserts that all necessary documents are available and can be furnished before the Ld. AO. Considering that the documentary evidence placed in the form of the sale deed supports the assessee’s claim of joint ownership and further considering that the assessee was not properly represented before the lower authorities, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to substantiate her claims. In the interest of substantial justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall examine the assessee’s claims afresh, keeping in view the facts recorded in the sale deed regarding co-ownership and also considering the documentary evidence that the assessee proposes to produce in support of her claims relating to selling expenditure, cost of improvement and deduction under section 54 of the Act. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee is directed to cooperate fully in the proceedings and to refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. The assessee shall produce all documents and evidence in support of her claims without delay. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham Page 12 of 12 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th December 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th December 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, Flat N o.504, D Block Fortune Towers, Madhapur, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500081 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "