RAJESH ,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

The assessee has raised the flowing grounds in appeal: 1. That the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law. 2. Initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was completely on erroneous facts, without application of mind, so the same should be decided as void ab initio. 3. That the failure to invoke the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act for determining the accurate market value of the property was a serious procedural lapse, rendering the assessment order flawed and unjustifiable. 4. That the appellant had already filed reports from Registered Valuer under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, but due to a filing error, these documents were mistakenly submitted in the penalty order appeal rather than in the quantum appeal. Despite being filed, the CIT(A) did not consider these reports in the penalty appeal, which further prejudiced the appellant's case. 5. That the first appellate authority also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence as filed before the same. Thus, the impugned order has no merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act. A.Y. 2013-14 6. If necessary, additional/ revised /modified grounds of appeal shall be filed at the time of hearing of the instant Appeal. 3. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay for 37 days. In the application the assessee has stated that due to illness he has not filed the appeal within prescribed time limit. The assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time limit. Therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

The assessee is a resident individual engaged in agricultural activities and also a handicapped person. The assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee under the provision of Section 147 and Section 144 of the Income Tax, Act 1961 on the basis that the assessee had allegedly sold an immovable property for Rs.35,00,000 during the relevant financial year. The initiation of proceedings was grounded solely on the premises that the sale consideration declared by the assessee was substantially lower than the circle rate of Rs.82,61,000/- applicable to the property in question. It is pertinent to note that the determination of the fair market value of the property, as per circle rate, was utilized by AO. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: A.Y. 2013-14 NFAC the assessee did not file his submissions before the authority, for which the appeal was dismissed in non-compliance by the NFAC.

Since in the instant case the Ld. NFAC has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantive its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the proceedings before Ld. NFAC. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. A.Y. 2013-14 Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025. (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25 July,2025. Neha, Sr. PS