Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad SMC Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2011-12 against the order of the CIT (A)- 3, Hyderabad, dated 9.5.2019.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual, had sold a house property vide sale document No.1515/2010 dated 29.07.2010 for a sale consideration of Rs.20.00 lakhs while the market value of the aforesaid property as per the sub-registrar data was Rs.21,19,920/-. The Assessing Officer received this information and therefore, was of the opinion that the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act are applicable and the capital gain therefrom is chargeable to tax. Therefore, he reopened the assessment by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, none appeared for the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and brought the total consideration of Rs.21,19,920/-to tax as long term capital gain.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) but with a delay of 40 days. The CIT(A), observing that the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for the delay, refused to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal thereafter, without considering the assessee’s contentions on merit. Thus, aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned, without adjudicating the issue on merits.
2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making the entire sale consideration of Rs. 21,19,920/- as "Long Term Capital Gain" without considering the Indexed Cost of Acquisition of inherited property, which is against the principles of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the learned Assessing Officer erred by assessing the entire sale consideration in the hands of the appellant without assessing proportionately in the hands of other two vendors as per the sale deed dated 29-07-2010.
4. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/ or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Prayer of Relief "The Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass judgment in favour of appellant: a. Consider the Indexed Cost of acquisition while calculating Long Term Capital Gain. b. To grant such other relief or reliefs that are deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice”.
4. I find that both the assessment order as well as the CIT(A)’s orders are ex-parte the assessee, and the Assessing Page 2 of 3 Officer while computing the LTCG has not allowed the indexed cost of acquisition at all. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to give the assessee another opportunity, I deem it fit and proper to condone the delay of 40 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT (A) and remand the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain and re-compute the income of the assessee according to his share in the property denovo in accordance with law.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd April, 2021.