Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “ SMC ”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “ SMC ”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2007-08 V. Laxmi Devi, Vs. DCIT, Hyderabad. Circle-15(1), PAN: AAOPV 1389 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 05/10/2020 Date of pronouncement: 05/10/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No. 67/CIT(A)-7/2015-16, dated 25/11/2016 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2007-08.
The assessee has raised six grounds in her appeal which are extracted herein below for reference:-
“The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have directed to allow Rs. 4 lakhs towards cost of improvements.
3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the capital gain arising on entering into development agreement does not arise from the AY 2005-06.
4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have directed the AO to allow exemption U/s. 54 of Rs. 6,99,186/- as claimed. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have seen that the exemption U/s. 54 is allowable from the capital gain determined by the AO. The deduction U/s. 54 is allowable on the amount of capital gain determined by the AO and not on the amount computed by the appellant. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before me that there is a delay of 184 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, Ld. AR brought my attention towards the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portions from the affidavit is extracted herein below:-
“…………….The said order was served on 19/04/2017. During the relevant period i.e, on 01/06/2017, the petitioner’s husband Sri V.V. Rajam was involved in a minor accident which lead to swelling in left ancle. As he is aged about 73 years and healing took longer period. It also lead to “edema & Dyspepsia”. He was undergoing treatment continuously with KGH Hospital till end of November, 2017. Copies of the medical record is annexed to the petition. The petition is also aged about 68 years with no physical assistance. She was also undergoing continuous treatment for tooth and eye ailments. All the income tax matters of the petitioner are looked after by petitioner’s husband Sri V.V. Rajam. As he was not in a position to attend the normal works due to his leg problems and he could not consult the Advocate. When the petitioner received a copy of the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2008-09 in on 13/12/2017 the matter was realized and the petitioner consulted an Advocate on 16/12/2017 and it was noticed that for the assessment year 2007-08 an appeal lies before the Hon’ble ITAWT. Accordingly, the appeal was got prepared on 18/12/2017 (17/12/2017 being Sunday) and the same is being filed before the Hon’ble ITAT on 19/12/2017. There is a delay of 184 days. The petitioner humbly submits that the delay is for the reasons submitted above which are beyond the control of petitioner and is not intentional.”
After hearing the submissions of the Ld. AR and on perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which is supported by the Medical Certificate enclosed along with the condonation petition, I find that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time due to the ill health suffered by the assessee’s husband. Hence, in the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay of 184 days in the filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that the assessee was not able to adduce proper evidence and explanation before the Ld. CIT (A) because she was not in a position to assist her Representative due to her husband’s illness. It was therefore pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to justify her stand before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. DR though objected to the submission of the Ld. AR finally conceded to his request.
After hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to represent her case before the Ld. CIT (A) keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for de novo consideration.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 05th October, 2020.