Rehana Aleem vs. Income-tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Rehana Aleem, filed an original return of income on 27.01.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,36,930/-. Based on AIR information, the Assessing Officer (AO) framed a reason to believe that the assessee had not disclosed capital gain from the sale of an immovable property for Rs. 35,22,000/- on 29.03.2008. The AO issued a notice under section 148 to re-open the case of the assessee under section 147. The AO completed the re-opened assessment on 08.03.2016, treating the entire sale proceeds as long-term capital gain. The assessee filed a first appeal but did not succeed. The assessee then approached the ITAT, claiming that the sale was fraudulent and that she did not receive any money from the sale.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,22,000/- made on account of long term capital gain without accepting the explanation offered by the assessee.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee is an old lady and victim of the fraud and against this fraud, she has filed a suit in the court.
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the actual sale consideration of the impugned property is Rs. 5,11,000/- and the value of the Rs. 35,22,000/- was determined invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act adopting the fair value while proper procedure was not adopted before invoking the provision u/s 50C of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Mrs. Geeta Narendra Gandhi Vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Rajeshbhai Bhagwandas Patel vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• Polly Saha vs ITO Ward 45(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata bench

• ACIT, Circle 34 (1) vs. Anil Kumar Singhal

• Saroj Goenka vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata

• ITA No.297/RJT/2023

  Rajkot bench