Case Law Details
Shashi Bala Sharma Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 and the demand notice under Section 156 of the Act, both dated 15.03.2023.
The petitioner, a bedridden terminally ill lady, had reassessment proceedings initiated against her based on information received on the insight portal maintained by the Income Tax Department. The revenue alleged that she had not filed her income tax return for the relevant Assessment Year despite receiving sale consideration of Rs. 2,64,00,000/- from an immovable property and rent of Rs. 12,80,100/- from Corporation Bank. The petitioner filed her return of income belatedly on 05.01.2023, disclosing the rental income and claiming exemption of long-term capital gain under Section 54 of the Act.
The revenue issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, seeking an explanation as to why the exemption under Section 54 should not be denied on the grounds that the sale consideration was used to purchase another immovable property in the name of her son and not in her own name. The petitioner, with medical records supporting her condition, sought an adjournment of 15 days to respond to the notice, but the Assessment Officer granted her time only till 04.03.2023.
In her detailed reply dated 04.03.2023, the petitioner cited various judicial precedents supporting her claim for exemption under Section 54. However, the impugned assessment order did not follow or address these judicial precedents. Additionally, the petitioner requested a personal hearing to explain her situation, but the same was not granted, violating the process mandated under Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act and her right to a fair hearing (jus naturale).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
