PUNAM VISHNURAJ MOTWANI,MUMBAI V. ITO-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 5974/MUM/2024

AI Insights

This case involves Punam Vishnuraj Motwani, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention revolves around the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that due to non-service of notices at her new address, she was unaware of the proceedings, leading to her inability to respond. The appellant, a senior citizen, had sold an old immovable property and invested the proceeds in another property, failing to update her address with the Income Tax Department. The CIT(A) upheld the penalties despite these circumstances. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation, considering the pending main appeal concerning Capital Gains.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23999 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH PAMNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: VENUGOPA C. NAIR
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 5974/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Punam Vishnuraj Motwani B/202, Lodha Imperia, LBS Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai - 400078. Vs. ITO 27(2)(5), ITO 27(2)(5), Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703. PAN NO. ANZPM9140D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Venugopa C. Nair Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/01/2025 ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 18/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12. 2. In the above captioned appeal, the appellant has filed an appeal for A.Y. 2011- “1. The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law in confirming Penalty that AO had levied u condone a delay which itself was non service of notices. 2. The Learned CIT (A) err in confirming Penalty that AO had levied u/s 271(1)(b) appellant served with any notice as the residence to which notices were served had been sold, assessment was framed. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify or omit any of the aforesaid grounds of Appeal as occasion may arise or demand. 3. The AR of appellant has submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen and she doesn’t know the intricacie Act. She has never filed Return of Income nor she with Income Tax portal. She sold an old immovable property and invested the entire sale consideration by acquiring another immovable property. As the appellant has not given h address” to Income Tax Department, the notices were sent to that old address and she was never aware of these notices, consequently couldn’t respond to the same. As the main appeal u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 is still pending, it was requested that may be given to her has argued that in view of the detailed order of Ld. CIT(A) and also because of continuous non shall be sustained. Punam Vishuraj Motwani ITA No. In the above captioned appeal, the appellant has filed an -12 with the following Grounds of Appeal : The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law ing Penalty that AO had levied u/s 271(1)(b), by refusing to condone a delay which itself was non-existent, when computed from The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law ing Penalty that AO had levied u/s 271(1)(b) with any notice as the residence to which notices were served had been sold, precisely on receipt of information of which the nt was framed. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify or omit any of the aforesaid grounds of Appeal as occasion may arise or demand. The AR of appellant has submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen and she doesn’t know the intricacies of Income Tax Act. She has never filed Return of Income nor she with Income Tax portal. She sold an old immovable property and invested the entire sale consideration by acquiring another immovable property. As the appellant has not given h address” to Income Tax Department, the notices were sent to that old address and she was never aware of these notices, consequently couldn’t respond to the same. As the main appeal u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 is still pending, it was requested that one more opportunity may be given to her to substantiate her case. Per contra, Ld. DR has argued that in view of the detailed order of Ld. CIT(A) and also because of continuous non-compliance of assessee, the penalty Punam Vishuraj Motwani 2 ITA No. 5974/MUM/2024 In the above captioned appeal, the appellant has filed an 12 with the following Grounds of Appeal : The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law by refusing to existent, when computed from ed in facts and circumstances and in law when the with any notice as the residence to which notices were precisely on receipt of information of which the The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify or omit any of the aforesaid grounds of Appeal as occasion may arise or demand.” The AR of appellant has submitted that the appellant is a s of Income Tax Act. She has never filed Return of Income nor she had registered with Income Tax portal. She sold an old immovable property and invested the entire sale consideration by acquiring another immovable property. As the appellant has not given her “changed address” to Income Tax Department, the notices were sent to that old address and she was never aware of these notices, consequently couldn’t respond to the same. As the main appeal u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. one more opportunity substantiate her case. Per contra, Ld. DR has argued that in view of the detailed order of Ld. CIT(A) and also compliance of assessee, the penalty 4. After hearing the is given one more opportunity reasons: a) The appellant is a senior citizen and her bonafides responding to the notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) are not in doubt because she ha the Department could not has not furnished “new address”. b) The main appeal which deals with Capital Gains is still pending with Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication and thu appeal may have some b sense, if it is held that these is no taxable income, then appellant would have better chance to substantiate her case. 5. Accordingly, the appellant is direct Department on the dispos 6. As it was held that appellant would be given one more chance, the case is remitted to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the main appeal of leviability of Capital Gains and then decide this penalty appeal. Punam Vishuraj Motwani ITA No. After hearing the rival submissions, it is decided the assessee is given one more opportunity to the appellant for the following The appellant is a senior citizen and her bonafides responding to the notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) are not in doubt because she has not received any of these notices. Of course, the Department could not be found fault since the appellant has not furnished “new address”. The main appeal which deals with Capital Gains is still pending with Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication and thu ppeal may have some bearing on the main appeal in the sense, if it is held that these is no taxable income, then appellant would have better chance to substantiate her case. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to co Department on the disposal of main appeal and this penalty appeal. As it was held that appellant would be given one more chance, the case is remitted to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the main appeal of leviability of Capital Gains and then nalty appeal. Punam Vishuraj Motwani 3 ITA No. 5974/MUM/2024 rival submissions, it is decided the assessee to the appellant for the following The appellant is a senior citizen and her bonafides for not responding to the notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) are not in doubt s not received any of these notices. Of course, found fault since the appellant The main appeal which deals with Capital Gains is still pending with Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication and thus penalty earing on the main appeal in the sense, if it is held that these is no taxable income, then appellant would have better chance to substantiate her case. d to co-operate with al of main appeal and this penalty appeal. As it was held that appellant would be given one more chance, the case is remitted to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the main appeal of leviability of Capital Gains and then 7. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 21/01/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Punam Vishuraj Motwani ITA No. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/ Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Punam Vishuraj Motwani 4 ITA No. 5974/MUM/2024 The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. /01/2025. Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "