Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM & SHRI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM
This appeal is filed by the assessee HUF against the appellate order 01. passed by the National faceless appeal Centre Delhi for assessment year 2016 – 17 on 28/4/2022 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 143 (3)
In fact, at the time of filing of the appeal, the registry has raised an objection that this appeal is time barred by 350 days. The assessee has submitted an affidavit of Karta wherein it has been stated that the order of the learned CIT – A was passed on 28/4/2022, which was brought to the notice of assessee on 25 March 2023 causing the delay of 350 days. Assessee states that he is a senior citizen not familiar with the email and electronic communication and English- language. The email address was also created by other persons. Further, the e-filing portal of the assessee has to email addresses, which was operated by the professional consultant of the assessee who is filing the return of income. Thereafter, another email address was incorporated by the tax consultant. The assessee to consultant at the email address filed the first appeal originally available. The impugned appellate order was also communicated only on email and no physical concerned on the assessee. Further, when the consultant was looking at e-filing portal for routine review he came to know about this order somewhere in 25th of March 2023. This was intimated to the assessee. As per the advice assessee immediately after consultant to file an appeal. Thus the delay caused due to inadvertence without any malafide, therefore, it was prayed that delay in filing of this appeal may be condoned.
The learned departmental representative vehemently objected that 03. there is a delay of 350 days and therefore it should not be condoned as assessee has not shown any sufficient reason.
Brief facts of the case shows that assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,609,030/– on 31/3/2017. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of value of consideration for computation of capital gain. It was found that assessee has sold a property at Kalyan Thane for an amount of ₹ 130 lakhs whereas the market value as per the stem duty authority is 1,61,57,000. Therefore, the assessee was asked to show why the difference between these two values should not be treated as income under section 50 C of the act. Assessee stated that actual sale consideration of the property is ₹ 130 lakhs, the property suffers transport visibility and further it does not have adequate parking facility. As the area of the property is more than 2000 ft², the buyers are not available. The property is purchased by a single buyer therefore actual realizable value is less than the stamp duty value. Assessee also submitted the valuation report by an approved Before the learned and CIT appeal assessee contended that the 06. difference is merely 10% between value adopted by department valuer and actual transaction value and therefore no addition should be made. The CIT – A did not agree and confirmed the addition.
Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us contending that the 07. difference between the valuation adopted by the departmental valuer and actual transaction value is less than 10% of the transaction value and therefore no addition should be made. He further referred to the relief under that section and submitted that it applies retrospectively.
London departmental representative vehemently objected the same 08. stating that for this assessment year there is no such provision available and therefore the lower authorities are correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the addition has been correctly made.
We find that the impugned assessment year is 2016 – 17. 09. Admittedly, assessee has sold a property at the transaction value of ₹ 130 lakhs. The valuation by the departmental valuer comes to ₹ 13,930,000/–. Therefore, the difference between the transaction
In the result appeal of assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2023.