USHA MARAZBAN PITHAWALLA,MUMBAI V. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 2177/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Usha Marazban Pithawalla, who appealed against a penalty order related to the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was imposed following an order from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which treated the appellant as an assessee in default concerning unexplained purchases and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested the tax demand and the penalty, arguing that the flat purchase was genuine and involved substantial payments from her husband's account, who was an NRI and the primary owner of the property. The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been remanded for re-assessment, rendering the penalty appeal premature and infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360846 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH BHOIR
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 2177/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Usha Marazban Pithawalla A-103 Sea Gull CHSL, Shery Rajan Road, Rizvi Complex, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400050 PAN:BBNPP9619R Vs. Income Tax Officer 27(3)(1) It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manish Bhoir Respondent by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.05.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present penalty appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 03/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal : “ The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AO) bearing DIN number ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041348792(1) erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax 2 ITANo.2177/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15 Usha Marazban Pithawalla Act for A.Y. 2014-15 treating the Appellant as asssessee in default against which Appellant have filed an appeal with the National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi but appeal was not accepted by CIT Appeals and rejection order passed (DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073925735(1)) for appeal was not file in time after rejection of our condonation of delay. 2. The AO erred in raising a tax demand of Rs. 2,36,12,001/- (including interest of Rs. 1,54,13,368/-) u/s 147 read with sec. 144 of the I.T. Act by stating purchase of Flat made by the assessee is unexplained not genuine. The appeal for the same is already filed before your honour. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AO) bearing DIN number ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2022-23/1045845744(1) erred in passing an order u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2014-15 treating the Appellant as assessee in default. 4. The AO erred in raising a tax demand of Rs. 81,98,633/- u/s 147 read with sec. 144 of the I.T. Act by stating \"Penalty proceedings for concealment of income has been initiated separately by issue of notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 was issued and served to the assessee asking the assessee as to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied in his case. The assessee has not filed any reply\" 5. If your honor peruses the said Flat Purchase Agreement, the said flat is purchased by your appellants is in joint name with her husband Mr. Marzban Pithawala who is the first owner and NRI. Even the agreement has mentioned his passport number as he did not have PAN in India at the time of purchase. Appellant's name was second name and kept for security purpose as any Husband will like to do for his wife. All the major payment was done from Husband's account only some money was paid by your appellant by breaking the fixed deposits to the tune of Rs. 50,34,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand only). These Fixed deposits were made from the savings which she did from some interest she earned and from the money which she received as gift from her husband. 6. Furthermore, we are also submitting the balance payment of the flat from your appellant's Husband's account to prove the genuinity of our case. 3 ITANo.2177/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15 Usha Marazban Pithawalla 7. The AO erred in treating the Appellant as 'asssessee in default for the purchase of the Flat so made. 8. Furthermore, as your appellant is a simple housewife and her Husband is also working abroad on an Oil Rig with limited internet access, they did not realize that there was a notice from the Income tax Department which they need to reply to or take some professional guidance on the same they did not reply or attend to any of the proceedings. As a result, the orders were passed which they were not aware till they received an \"SMS\" on their phone only on 7th September, 2023. Due to this ignorance, they could not file any response at the time of the Order nor could they file an appeal in time and stop the Penalty order u/s 271(1) (c).” 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, the quantum appeal for the year under consideration has been remanded by this Tribunal back to the Ld.AO for devono consideration has vide order dated 20/05/25 in ITA no. 2095/Mum/2025. He submitted that, as the present appeal is against levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) which is consequential in nature the said appeal does not survive at this stage. 3. We have considered the submissions of the Ld.AR and hold that the present penalty appeal is premature at this stage as the quantum appeal has been remanded by this Tribunal for denovo verification vide order dated 21/05/25 in ITA no. 2095/Mum/2025. 4. Accordingly the present penalty appeal becomes infructuous. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/05/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member 4 ITANo.2177/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15 Usha Marazban Pithawalla Mumbai: Dated: 21/05/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "