Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, sold an immovable property for Rs. 35,00,000/- during FY 2012-13 (AY 2013-14), with the circle rate being Rs. 82,61,000. The assessee did not file a return of income for the relevant assessment year. The case was selected for scrutiny under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to illness and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The appeal filed by the assessee against the quantum of income was allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal against the penalty order was also allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order should be allowed for statistical purposes, and whether the original assessment order and subsequent proceedings were valid.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 148, 50C, 250, 147, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “A”:NEW DELHI
Date of hearing 21.07.2025 Date of 25.07.2025 pronouncement ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 20.09.2024passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (herein after referred {NFAC}pertaining to assessment order dated A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 2 14.09.2022for Assessment year 2013-14 under Sections 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”). 2. The assessee has raised the flowing grounds in appeal:
1. 1. That the assessment order passed u/s 271(1)(c) 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 not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.
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 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 3 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 brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. In this case information received from Investigation Wing, Unit-2 Noida that the assessee had sold an immovable property amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- during F.Y.2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. The circle rate of the property was Rs.82,61,000. On perusal of the data available on system, it was found that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2013-14.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act, and accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the Act, was issued on 31.03.2021 after recording the satisfaction of Ld. PCIT, Noida. A notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 12.11.2021. However, no compliance to notice u/s. 142 (1) of the Act dated 12.11.2021 was made by the assessee.
A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 4 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC after filing the above captioned appeal. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee against the quantum was allowed for statistical purposes and restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide a fresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order is also allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025.