AMOL NUTANSING MERCHANT,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, MUMBAI

At the outset, I noticed that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed an application.

I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, as well as the application filed by the assessee explaining the delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before me and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then, in such eventuality, substantial justice is to be preferred, in my view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, which properly and justifiably explains the delay that occurred in filing the appeal, and considering the expression “sufficient cause” liberally, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before me. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

All the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal relate to the grievance challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the AO denying the benefit of indexation while computing the long-term capital gain under section 48 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, I have decided to adjudicate all these grounds raised by the assessee together for the sake of brevity.

In this regard, I have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before me, the judgments cited before me, and also gone through the orders passed by the authorities below.

From the records, I notice that the assessee had sold an immovable property, for which the computation of capital gain was made by the assessee by taking the cost of acquisition pertaining to Financial Year 2012–13, whereas the sale agreement of the assessee was executed in Financial Year 2007–08. The illustrations for the same is as follows:

After going through the facts of the case, I notice that the disallowance of the indexation benefit has been made by the Revenue authorities on the ground that the assessee had used the wrong base year for indexation, i.e., the date of possession instead of the date of transfer of ownership, for the purpose of arriving at the relevant financial year for claiming indexation, which, according to the Revenue, was contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act.

Even otherwise, in para 4.2 of the order of the learned CIT(A), it has been categorically held by the learned CIT(A) that the option available to the assessee was to file a revised ITR along with a request for condonation of delay in filing the ITR before the appropriate authority, and also to compute the capital gain correctly by specifically mentioning the exact financial year for claiming the indexation benefit.

In my view, there was no error committed by the learned CIT(A) while reaching this conclusion.

Even otherwise, no new facts or circumstances or documents have been placed on record by the learned AR in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings so recorded by the learned CIT(A). Hence, I dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.