NARESH KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3122/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 July 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which was partly during the Covid-19 pandemic. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the deletion of the impugned long-term capital gains addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 arose from proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO initiated proceedings alleging sale of lands, but it turned out to be a joint purchase of property with the wife. The assessee did not appear, and the case was proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order should be condoned considering the pandemic period, and whether the capital gains addition was justified based on the facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 21.07.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075703183(1) dated 21.04.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It transpires at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had initiated section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee alleging him to have sold lands amounting to Rs.34,00,000/- on 18.07.2014 whereas it turns out that he ended up adding the

4.

That being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to delete the impugned long term capital gains addition of Rs.41,14,000/- in the assessee’s hands. The same is directed to be deleted.

5.

It is noticed at the outset that the learned lower appellate authority has refused to condone the assessee’s delay in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 21.08.2020 against the assessment order dated 22.11.2018. That being the case, it is manifestly clear that at least a part of the above intervening time period herein above is covered under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak upto 28.02.2022 which already stood excluded for all intents/purposes as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

6.

Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained his delay in institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →