MUNIRAJU VIJAYALAKSHMI ,CHIKKABALLAPURA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

ITA 263/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Maniraju Vijayalakshmi, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary contention was the improper dismissal of her appeal without an effective opportunity of representation and the incorrect assessment of her income from capital gains on the sale of immovable properties. The appellant argued that the entire sale consideration was wrongly taxed as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing deductions for the cost of acquisition and improvement, and that the benefit of the 10% tolerance limit under section 50C was not considered. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately responded to the notices during the assessment proceedings but decided to remit the case back to the JAO for a fresh assessment, considering the interests of justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714664 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWIN D. GOWDA
• Assessee Lawyers: G. VENKATESH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 148; 144; 54F; 139; 234B; 50C

Judgement Text

"ITA No.263/Bang/2025 Maniraju Vijayalakshmi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.263/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maniraju Vijayalakshmi No.01, 1 Kurubara Pete Ward No. 06, Sidlaghatta Chikkaballapura-562105 Karnataka PAN : ATPPV0815L Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road 6th Block, Near KHB Games Village Koramangala, Bengaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri G. Venkatesh, Advocate Respondent by : Sri Ashwin D. Gowda, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order passed by Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) dated 26.12.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071598571(1) for the A.Y.2018-19, on the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income tax department, National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, [for short 'CIT(A), NFAC'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in so far the same is against the appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.263/Bang/2025 Maniraju Vijayalakshmi Page 2 of 5 2. The learned CIT (A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without affording effective opportunity of representation to the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in drawing an adverse inference that the appellant does not have the evidence in support of its grounds of appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the assessment order for default without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to Rs.99,23,750/- as against the NIL returned income on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in considering the amount of Rs.99,23,750/- as the full value of consideration u/s 50C of the Act without allowing the benefit of third proviso thereunder which contains 10% tolerance limit on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below are not justified in bringing to tax the entire sale consideration to capital gains without allowing deduction towards the cost of acquisition and improvement on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The authorities below erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s. 234Aand 234B of the Act. The interest levied being erroneous is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 11. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the assessee are that, assessee did not file her return of income for the A.Y.2018-19, as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA under the head “NMS Cases”. As per specific information the assessee during the financial year sold the immovable properties for a considerate of Rs.91.16 lakhs and did not file return under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.263/Bang/2025 Maniraju Vijayalakshmi Page 3 of 5 section 139 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Therefore, following due procedures, notice as per section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee which was duly served to the assessee on the e-mail provided. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee filed return on 12.04.2022 declaring Nil income and claimed refund of Rs.1160/-. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings various notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee side. The AO observed that the assessee did not submit any evidences regarding expenditure claimed from the capital gains computed, accordingly, the entire sales consideration received were considered as Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee and the assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). During the Appellate Proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) received part reply on 28.10.2022, there was no further compliance from the assessee side. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue on the materials available before him and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.263/Bang/2025 Maniraju Vijayalakshmi Page 4 of 5 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee is residing in remote area and she is illiterate. During the appellate proceedings the assessee sought time of four weeks and thereafter the other notices were issued very quickly and sufficient time was not granted to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee undertook and submitted that if a chance is given to the assessee the assessee will comply to substantiate her case. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld.DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that before both the lower authorities the assessee did not respond to any of the notices and the assessee is a non-filer, assessee is having taxable income inspite of that she did not file return of income. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. AO issued notices as per information received from Risk Management Strategy with the Department i.e., assessee has sold her capital asset and did not file the return of income. Even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not submit any documents to substantiate her claim, therefore the AO taxed the entire sale consideration as income which is not justified and before Ld.CIT(A) the assessee could not represent properly. Considering the facts of the case and the interest of justice, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.263/Bang/2025 Maniraju Vijayalakshmi Page 5 of 5 we remit this issue back to the file of JAO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law. Needless to say reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee and the assessee is directed to substantiate her case with credible evidences in support of her claim and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second lenience shall be granted to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th August, 2025. Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated: 08th August, 2025. Giridhar/Sr.PS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "