Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These Revenue’s twin appeals for Asst. Year 2011-12 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad’s separate orders, both dt.23.03.2020 passed in case Nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/102686978 and ITBA/APL/S/250/2019- Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively.
Cases called twice. None appeared at assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded exparte.
We notice at the outset that both the appeals of revenue suffer from 10 days delay in filing. Learned department representative submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that Revenue’s impugned delay of ten days in both cases is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore. to reverse the CIT(A)’s action partly deleting assessment findings at 1/3 rd share each of long term capital gain amounting to Rs.4,89,08,085/-, we note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that the lower appellate discussion to this effect read as under :
-- Space left intentionally --
We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand as it has come on record that the corresponding sale agreement had taken place on 11.5.2005 followed by the necessary advance payments satisfying section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso stipulating adoption of the agreed consideration followed a part and full payment on or before the date of agreement to be taken as the fair market value subject to the condition that the prescribed banking channel only had been adopted. The CIT(A) has already taken note of judicial precedents (supra) holding the foregoing proviso(es) to be curative ones having retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant identical sole substantive grievance raised in both the appeals.
These Revenue’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th Nov., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.29.11.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to :
1. 1. i) Shri Murtuza Ali Khan Mohammed, 16-4-278, Chanchalguda, Hyderabd-500 034. ii) Shri Mohammed Mukhtar Ali Khan, 16-4-278, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad-500 034.