Sameena Shamsuddin Sayed Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, arising from an assessment framed under Sections 147, 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The dispute concerned an addition of ₹1.10 crore made under Section 69 by treating the investment in an immovable property as unexplained investment, as well as the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal by the CIT(A) on account of a delay of 79 days.
The assessee was an individual woman residing in Mumbai and was admittedly a homemaker with no independent source of income. She had not filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year as there was no taxable income in her hands. Information received through the RMS/Insight Portal indicated that she had purchased an immovable property valued at ₹1.10 crore during the relevant financial year, leading to initiation of reassessment proceedings.
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the entire consideration for the property had been paid by her father, Late Mr. Shahensha Ibrahim Shaikh, who was a businessman and a regular income-tax assessee. According to the assessee, the father directly paid the purchase consideration from his ICICI Bank account to the seller, and the property was purchased in the daughter’s name out of natural love and affection. In support of the explanation, she furnished the registered sale deed, her father’s death certificate, and ICICI Bank statements showing two payments of ₹55 lakh each made directly to the seller on 01.10.2014 and 10.10.2014, aggregating to ₹1.10 crore.
