TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er her income tax matters before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP"). Due to advanced age and deteriorating health, Shri Rakesh Roshan is said to have handed over the responsibility of the case to Shri Krishna Mohan, a tax consultant. In the intervening period, Shri Rakesh Roshan unfortunately passed away. Shri Krishna Mohan, who had been delegated the file, did not possess updated contact details of the assessee, and therefore could not inform her about the passing of the final assessment order by the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") pursuant to Ld. DRP directions. Only in September 2024, when the assessee independently contacted Shri Krishna Mohan to enquire about the case status, did she come to know about the order passed by the Ld. AO. Immediately upon such discovery, the assessee took steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. The delay of 243 days has thus occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, and not due to any deliberate or negligent conduct. The Learned Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the delay is bonafide and covered by reasonable cause and deserves to be condoned in the interest of j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appellant's case 5. The Hon'ble DRP erred in dismissing the objections raised by the appellant without properly considering the remand report, which contained critical evidence proving that the appellant had no connection with the sale transaction. Causing undue hardship and an erroneous tax demand against the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any or more grounds of appeal stated herein above either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non-resident individual who did not file any return of income u/s. 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Based on available information, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had earned income on account of capital gains on sale of land, which had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. After considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO passed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act on 27.02.2023 making....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. Further, at para no. 3 of page no.3 of the sale deed, it is specifically acknowledged that the land had already been sold to the buyer on 19.04.2010, and the buyer is now exercising his rights as owner by selling a part of the land. Thus, it is clear that no fresh transfer of any land was made by the assessee in the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16. What has occurred is a subsequent sale by the TTCIPL, and the assessee's name appears only to confirm the chain of title to the ultimate purchaser. 5.2 Further, the Ld. AR has placed on record the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12, wherein the capital gain arising from the original transfer of the land to the TTCIPL has already been assessed. The Ld. AR also submitted that, in the case of Smt. Ishrat Fatima Husain, one of the co-heirs and sisters of the assessee, reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were also initiated for AY 2015-16. However, no addition was made by the Ld. AO in her case in respect of the same transaction, which clearly shows inconsistent application of facts by the Revenue in similar matters. 5.3 Finally, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same land (2 acres out of the total 39 acres 11 guntas) that had already been sold by the assessee and her family members to TTCIPL on 19.04.2010. Further, the sale deed dated 16.03.2015 shows that the land was sold by TTCIPL to Sri Nadipally Sri Ranga Rao, and the assessee along with her sisters and brothers were merely joined as vendors to provide better title, even though they had no continuing ownership rights as of 2015. 7.2 We have also gone through para no.3 of page no.3 of the sale deed dated 16.03.2015, which is to the following effect : "WHEREAS originally one Late Hyder Ali Mirza S/o. Late Dr.Safdar Ali Mirza was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.14-25 guntas in Sy. No.310, Ac.13-03 guntas in Sy no.311 and Ac.11-24 guntas in Sy no.312, total comes to Ac.39-11 guntas situated at Budwel Village, Rajendra nagar Mandal, R R Dist. After the demise of Late Hyder Ali Mirza, his legal heirs have sold away the said land to an extent of Ac.19.25.5 Gts (out of Ac 39.11 Gts) to the Triumala Tirupati Constructions (India) Pvt Ltd and executed a registered Agreement of Sale Cum General power Of Attorney document bearing No 3034 of 2010 dated 19-04-2010 and to an extent....