KAMLESHRANI SHARMA ,MUMBAI V. ITO-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6955/MUM/2024

AI Insights

Kamleshrani Sharma appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,33,53,900 as short term capital gain for the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer had initially treated the sale of a property as a short term capital gain and disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54F. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant did not provide adequate evidence to substantiate her claim that the property was a long term capital asset. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities that the property was not held for a long term and thus not eligible for the deduction under section 54F.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471366 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kamleshrani Sharma, 108 Shreekant Chambers, V.N. Purva Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Vs. ITO-27(2)(1), 4th floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN NO. AAMPS 3760 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment Year 2015-16, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,33,53,900/ disallowing, deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact of the case and certified document produced before him. contrary to various settled judicial decisions and bad in law and should be deleted. 2. The Appellant prays that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax -Appeals has not exercised the wide array of powers available to him under the provisions of Income Tax Act to ascertain the facts before confirming the additions in hands of Appellant and the add 2. At the outset, it is mentioned that despite notifying neither anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed, therefore, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecutin therefore, same was heard arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3 ) of the Income Act’) dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer treated the sale of the property as short term capital gain and accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54 issuing seven notices CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of documents available on records, observing as under: “8.3. It is seen that the appellant has not made any compliance to the hearing notices issued. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had stated that property was allotted to her on ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,33,53,900/- under the head Short Term Capital Gain thereby disallowing, deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact of the case and certified document produced before him. contrary to various settled judicial decisions and bad in law and should be deleted. Appellant prays that the Learned Commissioner of Income Appeals has not exercised the wide array of powers available to him under the provisions of Income Tax Act to ascertain the facts before confirming the additions in hands of Appellant and the additions should be deleted. At the outset, it is mentioned that despite notifying neither anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment filed, therefore, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and therefore, same was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3 ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act’) dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer treated the sale of the property as short term capital gain and accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. On further appeal, despite issuing seven notices, no representation was made before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of documents dismissed the effective grounds of the assessee 8.3. It is seen that the appellant has not made any compliance ng notices issued. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had stated that property was allotted to her on Kamleshrani Sharma 2 ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. head Short Term Capital Gain thereby disallowing, deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact of the case and certified document produced before him. Same is contrary to various settled judicial decisions and bad in law and Appellant prays that the Learned Commissioner of Income Appeals has not exercised the wide array of powers available to him under the provisions of Income Tax Act to ascertain the facts before confirming the additions in hands of At the outset, it is mentioned that despite notifying neither anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment filed, therefore, we were of the opinion that g the appeal and qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer treated the sale of the property as short term capital gain and accordingly disallowed the of the Act. On further appeal, despite on was made before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of documents dismissed the effective grounds of the assessee 8.3. It is seen that the appellant has not made any compliance ng notices issued. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had stated that property was allotted to her on 05/12/2011. However, on verification of the records, the property was only transferred to the appellant on 19/01/2015. Moreover, the appellant' she had failed to explain as to how the property was allotted to her on 05/12/2011, when no such property was existent on that day. Furthermore, there is no mention regarding the allotment of property in the name of ap dated 14.02.2012. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the property was taken over by her on 05/12/2011 is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted. The mere claim of the appellant cannot be accept such supporting proof. During the course of appellate proceedings too, no essential supporting documents were furnished which are required to establish genuineness of the claim made. Before the first Appellate Authority also, the a the additions are wrongly made and never turned up with solid documentary evidence to satisfy the merits of the case. Nothing is submitted to verify the genuineness of the claims made in the Grounds of appeal. 8.4. It is pertine many as 7 opportunities during the appellate proceedings. However, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of its claim made in grounds of appeal. Also, the appellant failed to fur documentary evidence to prove her contentions during the course of the appellate proceedings too. Since the appellant did not respond to any of the seven hearing notices sent, this appellate authority is of the opini submit in support of her grounds. 8.5. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably concluded that the nature o income is short capital gain and the Assessing Officer has taxed them under income from short term gains after considering both factual and circumstantia evidence. No infirmity is found in the order of the Assessing Officer and the action c the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as short term capital gains and taxin them warrants confirmati appellant does not succeed in this ground and th Ground No. 1 filed by the appellant is hereby 4. We have heard relevant material on record. W contention of the sale of the assessee as long term capital gain and ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 05/12/2011. However, on verification of the records, the property was only transferred to the appellant on 19/01/2015. Moreover, the appellant's contention.cannot be accepted since she had failed to explain as to how the property was allotted to her on 05/12/2011, when no such property was existent on that day. Furthermore, there is no mention regarding the allotment of property in the name of appellant in the registered agreement dated 14.02.2012. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the property was taken over by her on 05/12/2011 is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted. The mere claim of the appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any such supporting proof. During the course of appellate proceedings too, no essential supporting documents were furnished which are required to establish genuineness of the claim made. Before the first Appellate Authority also, the appellant merely stated that the additions are wrongly made and never turned up with solid documentary evidence to satisfy the merits of the case. Nothing is submitted to verify the genuineness of the claims made in the Grounds of appeal. 8.4. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant was provided as many as 7 opportunities during the appellate proceedings. However, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of its claim made in grounds of appeal. Also, the appellant failed to furnish proper explanation with supporting documentary evidence to prove her contentions during the course of the appellate proceedings too. Since the appellant did not respond to any of the seven hearing notices sent, this appellate authority is of the opinion that the appellant has no material to submit in support of her grounds. 8.5. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably concluded that the nature o income is short capital gain and the Assessing Officer has taxed them under income from short term gains after considering both factual and circumstantia evidence. No infirmity is found in the order of the Assessing Officer and the action c the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as short term capital gains and taxin them warrants confirmati appellant does not succeed in this ground and th Ground No. 1 filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.” We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. We find that no evidence in support of of the sale of the assessee as long term capital gain and Kamleshrani Sharma 3 ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 05/12/2011. However, on verification of the records, the property was only transferred to the appellant on 19/01/2015. s contention.cannot be accepted since she had failed to explain as to how the property was allotted to her on 05/12/2011, when no such property was existent on that day. Furthermore, there is no mention regarding the allotment of pellant in the registered agreement dated 14.02.2012. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the property was taken over by her on 05/12/2011 is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted. The mere ed in the absence of any such supporting proof. During the course of appellate proceedings too, no essential supporting documents were furnished which are required to establish genuineness of the claim made. Before the ppellant merely stated that the additions are wrongly made and never turned up with solid documentary evidence to satisfy the merits of the case. Nothing is submitted to verify the genuineness of the claims made in the nt to mention that the appellant was provided as many as 7 opportunities during the appellate proceedings. However, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of its claim made in grounds of appeal. Also, nish proper explanation with supporting documentary evidence to prove her contentions during the course of the appellate proceedings too. Since the appellant did not respond to any of the seven hearing notices sent, this appellate on that the appellant has no material to 8.5. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably concluded that the nature o income is short capital gain and the Assessing Officer has taxed them under income from short term capital gains after considering both factual and circumstantia evidence. No infirmity is found in the order of the Assessing Officer and the action c the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as short term capital gains and taxin them warrants confirmation. The appellant does not succeed in this ground and th Ground No. 1 the submission of the Ld. DR and perused the e find that no evidence in support of of the sale of the assessee as long term capital gain and for subsequent deduction u/s 54F of the Act before the lower authorities or before us. Evidently without supporting the sale transaction as long term capital gain, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 for subsequent deduction u/s 54F of the Act have been filed either before the lower authorities or before us. Evidently without supporting the sale transaction as long term capital gain, the e is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. sult, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Kamleshrani Sharma 4 ITA No. 6955/MUM/2024 have been filed either before the lower authorities or before us. Evidently without supporting the sale transaction as long term capital gain, the e is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue we uphold the same. Accordingly the sult, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "