LATE JILE SINGH THRUGH L/H RANJEET SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA Nos.1567 & 1568/Del/2020 [Assessment Year : 2009-10] Late Jile Singh through L/H Ranjeet vs ITO, Singh, Ch No.206-207, Aansal Satyam, Ward-1(3), RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. PAN-BEIPJ5363Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : Both appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 are directed against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 31.10.2018 and 28.09.2018, wherein one appeal is filed against the quantum proceedings and another appeal is filed against the penalty proceedings respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised, both appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by way of consolidated order for the sake of brevity. Year : 2009-10] First we take up the assessee’s appeal in 2. pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. “Because, order of Id. CIT(A) is bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Because, Id. C1T (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by not condoning delay of 176 days by way of ex-party order in as much as solitary notice dt. 11.10.2018 is never received by the legal heir who had no knowledge about the matter as assessee was also not keeping well and expired soon after filing the appeal on 21.01.2018. 3. Because, ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to exercise discretion judiciously despite the fact that assessee stated reason for the delay in the appeal memo itself that assessee was an illiterate person having no knowledge of tax matters and was also not keeping well. 4. Because, without prejudice to above on merits Id. AO has erred in computing capital gain on the sale of land through ex-party order, which was an agricultural land and not being an asset as per sec. 2 (14) as such was not subject to capital gain. Hence levy of tax is beyond the provisions of the law. 5. Because, in addition to above Id. AO erred in computing the capital gain without allowing cost of acquisition in terms of sec. 48 of the Act. 6. Because, part of land of the same khasra is accepted as agricultural land by revenue after remand of the case by honorable ITAT in case of Ajay Kumar Maheshwari in and no tax is levied. Therefore, it is very respectfully prayed that this hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to condone delay and set aside the order under question with the directions deemed fit to Id. AO or Id. C1T(A) as the case may be to hear the matter on merits.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order as well as the order of Ld.CIT(A), is ex-parte to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee was suffering from serious ailment hence, could not file the appeal in time before Ld.CIT(A). The assessee expired on 21.01.2018 due to illness as Death Certificate is placed on record by the Legal Heir of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that under the facts of the present case, a liberal view may be taken and the delay be condoned. He further submitted that the matter may be restored to the authorities below.