KHUSBHU RAMCHANDRA YADAV,MUMBAI CITY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (2), KALYAN, KALYAN

ITA 6559/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Khushbu Ramchandra Yadav, a director of Implicit Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., who was assessed for capital gains on a property transaction. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under section 147 and made an addition of Rs. 80 lakhs, treating it as short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 101 days in filing, which was attributed to the negligence of the assessee's brother in managing her email account. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present her case at the initial stages and thus restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANT N. PAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6559/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) KhushbuRamchandra Yadav C/o Implicit Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd, A-102, Royal Garden, Atria Mall Compound, Opp. Markandeshwar Temple, Dr. Anne Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 PAN : ADJPY2308K vs Income-tax Officer-Ward 2(2), KALYAN, 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan-421 301 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Anant N. Pai Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of hearing : 08/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 11/12/2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 19/08/2025. The impugned order was emanated Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.6559/Mum/2025 Khushbhu Ramchandra Yadav from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 12/01/2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non filer of return for the impugned assessment year. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Finally, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 80 lakhs. The Ld.AO received information that the assessee being a seller had sold and transfer the premises approximately admeasuring 40.30 square metres carpet area, bearing Flat no. 301 on the 3rd floor building known as Earth Pillar situated at 22-24B, Khadilkar Road, Girgaum, Mumbai- 400004 on the land bearing C S No. 538 of Girgaum division, Mumbai City to Mr Ranjeet Motilal Jain and Smt Mankush Ranjeet Jain for a sale consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-. Further, it is found that the transaction was carried out on the assessee's PAN (ADJPY2038K) not on the Company's PAN. The Ld. AO issued the notice to the assessee but due to non-compliance of said notices finally the Ld. AO completed assessment exparte. The Ld.AO considered the transaction as the short term capital gain & calculated tax u/s 45 after considering the cost of acquisition at Nil. The addition was confirmed amount to Rs. 80,00,000/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 101 days. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for contravening provisions of section 249(2) of the Act for delay in filing the appeal and upheld the addition. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.6559/Mum/2025 Khushbhu Ramchandra Yadav 3. The Ld. AR filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 91, which has been taken on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had no involvement whatsoever in the sale of the impugned property. The assessee is merely a Director of “Implicit Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.” and acted only as an authorised signatory of the said company, which had sold the property on 01/12/2014 for a consideration of Rs.80 lakhs. The information relied upon by the Ld. AO, as received from the Registry Department, was therefore incorrect. The assessment was framed ex parte; however, in appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. The Ld. AR further submitted that, as per the affidavit, the assessee’s email account was being handled by her brother and, due to his negligence, the statutory notices remained unattended. Consequently, the assessee could not access the assessment order in time, resulting in the delay. A copy of the registered sale deed dated 01/12/2014 pertaining to “Implicit Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.” is placed at APB pages 1–39. It was further submitted that TDS was duly deducted and the same is reflected in the company’s Form 26AS, enclosed at APB pages 40–43. The company has already disclosed the impugned transaction under the head “Capital Gains” and paid due taxes thereon. A copy of the company’s ITR for A.Y. 2015–16 is placed at APB pages 44–75. Therefore, the assessee is not the beneficiary of the alleged transaction nor has she earned any capital gains there from. 4. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities, though no substantive rebuttal was made against the factual submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.6559/Mum/2025 Khushbhu Ramchandra Yadav 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On examination, it is evident that the assessee is merely a Director of the company which sold the property on 01/12/2014, and the company has duly disclosed the impugned transaction in its return of income and paid tax thereon. The assessment, however, was completed ex parte, thereby denying reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The relevant evidence and documents were also not available before the Assessing Officer at the time of the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation due to a delay of 101 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay. We find that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the assessee at either stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee’s request for condonation of delay liberally. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidence and documents before the Ld. CIT(A) during the set-aside proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter pass a speaking order on merits, as the factual matrix has not been examined by any authority thus far. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Simultaneously, the assessee is expected to remain diligent and co- operative to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.6559/Mum/2025 Khushbhu Ramchandra Yadav 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.6559/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/12/ 2025. Sd/- sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 11/12/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. गाड\u0019फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "