VAIDEHI SHASHANK KARADE,PUNE V. ITO WARD-5 PANVEL, PANVEL

SA 17/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vaidehi Shashank Karande, who through a Stay Application requested the Tribunal to stay the realization of an outstanding demand of Rs.1,18,27,513. The assessee argued that her income was below the taxable limit and that her husband had paid for an immovable property where her name was included for convenience. The Assessing Officer had made additions to her income as short term capital gain and unexplained money under sections 147 and 69 of the I T Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected the Stay Application due to the absence of financial details but granted an out of turn hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773236 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Salary income; Application of stay
• Section: 147; 144; 69; 2

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No.17/PUN/2025 Arising out of ITA No.2100/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2015-16 Vaidehi Shashank Karande 10, Pratiksha, Shri Ram Nagar, Near Chetak Goda, Jawhar Colony, Aurangabad – 431005 Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panvel PAN: DETPK7189J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of hearing : 26-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 26-09-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The assessee through this Stay Application requests the Tribunal to grant stay on the realization of the outstanding demand of Rs.1,18,27,513/-. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset while explaining the case of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. Her income was only Rs.2,28,207/- which was below the taxable limit for which she has not filed her return of income. He submitted that her husband Mr. Shashank Karande had purchased an immovable property where the assessee’s name was shown as one of the co-owners for convenience purpose and the purchase consideration of Rs.56,67,300/- was paid by her husband. He submitted Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.17/PUN/2025 that the agreement for the purchase was entered into on 21.04.2014 and registered on 22.04.2014 with payment of stamp duty of Rs.2,83,400/- and registration fees of Rs.30,000/-. The Assessing Officer passed the ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I T Act, 1961 on 25.01.2024. The assessee came to know of this order only when she received recovery intimation dated 24.10.2024 on e-mail. The Assessing Officer in the order had made addition of Rs.56,67,300/- as short term capital gain and Rs.56,67,300/- as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69 of the I T Act, 1961, thus, making double addition of the same amount. While explaining the prima facie case in favour of the assessee, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the husband of the assessee has paid the entire money and name of the assessee was mentioned in the sale deed for convenience purpose, therefore, no addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the ex-parte order. He further submitted that the financial condition of the assessee is very bad and the assessee is not in a position to pay any amount towards the outstanding demand. He accordingly submitted that full stay on the realization of outstanding demand should be granted to the assessee. He also requested for an out of turn hearing. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the Stay Application filed by the assessee requesting the Tribunal to stay on the realization of the outstanding demand. He, however, submitted that he has no objection for out of turn hearing. Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA No.17/PUN/2025 4. After hearing both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that in absence of submission of any financial details of the assessee by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Stay Application filed by the assessee cannot be accepted. We, therefore, reject the Stay Application filed by the assessee. However, the request of the assessee for an out of turn hearing is accepted and accordingly the appeal is fixed for hearing on 06.10.2025 which was announced in the open Court. It was further announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent to which both the parties agreed. 5. In the result, the Stay Application filed by the assessee is decided in the above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 26th September, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 4 SA No.17/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 26.09.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "