REVATHIKUMAR SUDHA,CHENNAI V. ACIT, NCW-19(1), CHENNAI

ITA 305/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Revathikumar Sudha, against orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The appeals challenged both the quantum addition to income and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues revolved around the reopening of the assessment under section 147 and the ex-parte orders issued by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer had initially made additions to the assessee's income based on the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the purchase consideration of an immovable property, along with a failure to deduct TDS as required under section 194IA. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution, leading to the current appeals before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107930 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Reopening of assessment; TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 271(1)(c); 56

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ Ɋायपीठ,चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े., उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 304 and 305/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, 29, 3rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Nagar, Chennai 600 061. [PAN: AZTPS-8926-R] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 19.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] both dated 12.12.2024 pertains to the assessment year 2015-16 towards quantum addition as well as penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee raised 15 grounds of appeal, wherein, besides challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also disputed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for AY 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at ₹.14,14,820/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2017 by accepting the returned income of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noted that as per the information with the department that the assessee had purchased an immovable property (vacant land) to an extent of 3.00 acres for a total consideration of ₹.1,50,00,000/-. As per guideline value, the value worked out to ₹.7,82,28,000/- and as per the provisions of section 56 of the Act, any immovable property without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property, which is not to be excluded from the total income and it shall be chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased capital asset for total consideration of ₹.1,50,00,000/- for which TDS under section 194IA of the Act was to be deducted @1% which was not done by the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer satisfied that the income arised out of difference of stamp duty value and purchase consideration of immovable property chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, proceedings under section 147 of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. However, the assessee did :-3-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 not file his return of income against the notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued various notices under section 142(1) of the Act. Against the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.12.2021, the assessee filed copy of acknowledgement of ITR filed on 30.09.2015, computation of income, P&L account, balance sheet & schedules. No other details with explanation and documentary evidence, as called for vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act has been furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer finally issued show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act, but, there was no response from the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022 by making addition towards difference of stamp duty valuation and purchase consideration of the immovable property i.e., 6,32,38,000/- [₹.7,82,28,000 minus ₹.1,50,00,000] and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.7,82,280/- since the assessee has not deducted and paid TDS @1% of total consideration. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution since the assessee could not respond to various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024, 06.06.2024 & 02.07.2024. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. :-4-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 6. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, drew our attention to the printout of e-portal website screenshots placed at page 16 to 18 of the paper and submitted that the assessee has duly responded to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer omitted to consider the same during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the ld. AR drew our attention to Form 35 filed by the assessee, wherein, the e-mail address mentioned is suprabhathconstruction @yahoo.com, whereas, the ld. CIT(A) issued notices to a different e-mail ID of [e-mail], copy of the same are placed on record. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the assessee may be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer. 7. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 8. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well :-5-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We note from the printout of e-portal website screenshots placed in the paper book that the assessee has filed replies to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, but, the same were not considered. Moreover, we find that the ld. CIT(A) issued the notices to a wrong e-mail ID. Under the above facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee after considering the submissions/ documentary evidences, if any, as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. 9. With regard to the issue of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 [2022 SCC Online SC 543] in view of the amendment made under section 148 of the Act and thereafter proceed to decide the issue on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 305/Chny/2025 10. This appeal is directed against confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the quantum addition did not attain its finality, as we have remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing :-6-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 11. In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 304/Chny/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.305/Chny/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 17th April, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd//- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े.) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT (एस.आर.रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 17th April, 2025 Vm/- आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "