TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case are that, the assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer received information that, the assessee had been allotted 27 flats in "Sri Sai Residency Apartment", Thummalagunta, Tirupati, in lieu of land given to the developer, but the assessee had not offered any income relating to this transaction. Based on this information, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act, by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, on 10.02.2020. In response, the assessee filed her return of income on 27.03.2021 admitting total income of Rs.1,50,68,940/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that, she had limited life interest in the property and that her son was also one of the parties to the development agreement, which created doubt about the quantification of her share of income. She submitted that, the introduction of Section 45(5A) and the timing of completion of the flats also contributed to the delay. She contended that, she had disclosed all particulars in the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, cooperated with the department, and even paid substantial taxes before the assessment was completed and argued that, all these circumstances constituted reasonable cause and therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not leviable. 5. After considering the relevant submissions of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income-tax Act, where the income of the assessee has been determined on an estimation basis, and further the assessee has explained the reasons for not filing the return of income to the satisfaction of the A.O. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the income declared by the assessee for the year under consideration, submitted that, the assessee has reported income from long-term capital gains derived from transfer of property in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement, and said property is owned by the assessee and her son, and the assessee is only a beneficial owner, and the property entirely belongs to the son of the assessee. Further, there is an ambiguity in law in respect of taxability of income derived from capita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issuance of notice under Section 148, she had filed the return of income disclosing the income from Long Term Capital Gains derived on account of the transfer of property in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement. Further, the case of the assessee falls under Section 270A(3) of the Act, where it has been clearly stated that, in a case where the income has been assessed for the first time, where no return of income has been furnished, or the return has been furnished for the first time under Section 148 of the Act, then the amount of under-reported income shall be the difference between the amount of income reassessed or recomputed and the amount of income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in the preceding year. In the present case, since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018, 18.07.2018, and 31.12.2019, which is much before the date of notice under Section 148 issued by the A.O. on 10.02.2020. The assessee claimed that, there was a confusion in taxability of income derived from capital gains on account of transfer of property in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement, because, the property was jointly owned by the assessee along with her son and the assessee is only the beneficial owner and the real owner of the property is her son, because the said property has been received by the assessee by gift. Since there is an ambiguity in the taxability of income, the assessee could not furnish return of income on or before the due date provided under Section 139 of the Act, however, paid taxes on the said inc....