Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED HON’BLE
आदेश/O R D E R
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-2, Rajkot dated 11.11.2016 passed for the Asstt.Year 2007-08.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of appeal ex parte qua assessee-appellant after hearing the ld.DR and considering the material available on record.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. In brief, grievance of the assessee is on two issues, viz. that (a) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of
ITA No.20/RJT/2017 2 Rs.1,77,636/- and Rs.287/- on account of long term capital gain, and (b) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing first appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the issue on merit.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a teacher and deriving income salary. Return of income was filed on19.7.2007 declaring total income of Rs.1,27,780/-. Subsequently, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has sold property for sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- on 16.9.2006 on which stamp duty valuation authority has valued the property at Rs,5,00,192/-. The assessee did not disclose any capital gain arisen from such sales in the return. Therefore, the AO presumed that capital gain on such transaction has escaped assessment, and reopened assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. As can be noticed from the assessment order, while calculating capital gain on such sale, the ld.AO has recorded that the assessee has agreed to the taxation of the capital gain. Accordingly, the ld.AO worked out capital gain of Rs.1,77,636/- and added to the total income of the assessee. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which was late by 196 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that delay in filing of appeal neither explained nor any condonation is sought for. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) assessee is before the Tribunal.
We shall first take-up the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee has filed appeal before first appellate authority which was late by 196 days. Before us, assessee has filed written submissions. Except relying on some of the judgments on the issue of condonation of delay, there is no valid pleadings to adjudicate the issue non- condonation of delay by the ld.CIT(A). Even in the form no.35 submitted before the ld.CIT(A) there is no mention about condonation of delay sought
ITA No.20/RJT/2017 3 by the assessee, nor any application for condonation has been filed. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has left with no option but to reject the appeal. We find that expression “sufficient cause” employed in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act provides powers to the ld.Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. De hores sufficient explanation, authority cannot simply condone the delay, otherwise provision of section 249(3) would have no relevancy. In the instant case, there is no explanation before the first appellate authority for condoning the delay. Therefore, in absence of delay being explained by the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. Consequently, appeal of the assessee before us stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 1st October, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER