YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), BAREILLY

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.06.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

Page 2 of 6 3. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- without making the mandatory reference to the DVO.

5. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the order of assessment as re Ld. Ao has passed the order of assessment without jurisdiction.

6. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other and further grounds of appeal with permission.”

2. The present appeal is barred by limitation by 512 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. The Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application for condonation of delay and relied upon the contents of the accompanying affidavit. It was submitted that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 04.06.2024 and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The reason for the delay was that the notices/orders were not served upon the assessee, as the email address and phone number of the previous Ld. Counsel continued to be reflected on the Income Tax Portal. It was further submitted that the assessee came to know about the said order only when a notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was served upon him. Thereafter, the assessee took prompt steps and changed his counsel on 21.11.2025 for the purpose of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee, and the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause” from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the submissions of the assessee and contended that the Page 3 of 6 assessee cannot take advantage of his own negligence. It was submitted that no “sufficient cause” has been shown for condonation of such an inordinate delay and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.

4. Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties. It is the case of the assessee that the impugned order was not received within time. The appellant came to know about the said order only when a notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was served upon him. Considering the fact that there was no representation before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the order has been passed ex parte, the reasons stated for the delay are found to be beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the assessee failed to substantiate the market value as disclosed in the sale deed. He drew my attention towards finding of Assessing Authority, to buttress the contention that the AO was justified in adopting the value of property on the basis of circle rate.

8. Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. Undisputedly, the issues involved in the present appeal relate to the applicability of section 50C of the Act and the validity of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. It is a settled position of law that where there Page 5 of 6 are peculiar circumstances affecting the value of the property, strict application of section 50C of the Act without proper inquiry is not justified. It is also noted that the assessee has specifically contended that no prudent buyer was willing to purchase the property at the circle rate due to the ongoing dispute. However, the Assessing Officer has neither examined this contention nor made any independent inquiry in this regard. Further, no reference was made to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), which ought to have been done when the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation. This action of the Assessing Officer is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Looking to the facts of the present case, the impugned order is hereby set aside restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It is needless to say that the Assessing Officer would give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and furnish all necessary documents/evidences in support of his claim. All the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.