ADITYA ARUN HULAWALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), PUNE

The sole issue for our consideration is regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer for short term capital gain at Rs.95,90,000/-.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2018- 19. Based on the information available on insight portal, ld. Assessing Officer observed that there was certain transactions from sale of Equity share, sale of immovable property, payment of rent and sale of options and securities and derivatives on the recognized stock exchange. Valid notices u/s.148 of the Act was issued after taking prior approval to which the assessee filed return on 30.05.2022 declaring income at Rs.4,02,200/-. Thereafter, partial submissions were made and assessment proceedings were concluded making addition only with regard to short term capital gain. The assessee in his reply stated that he has also sold immovable property for Rs.40,90,000/- and Agricultural Land for Rs.55,00,000/- located at Domalewadi, Taluka Shrigonda. Even though the assessee claimed that he has sold Agricultural land which is not a capital asset but in absence of any documentary evidence, total sale consideration of Rs.95,90,000/- has been treated as short term capital gain.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with delay of 171 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted stating that the assessee has not provided any reasonable cause of delay beyond the prescribed period. The request for condonation of delay in filing appeal has been rejected.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though the assessee filed application for condonation of delay and also filed written submissions, however, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay. He further made reference to the detailed paper book providing documents to support its argument that the land sold is Agricultural land and is not a capital asset. Documents were also filed for proof of cost of acquisition however, the same have not been examined by both the lower authorities and therefore prayed for restoring the matter to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but did not oppose the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. The only issue for our consideration is addition for short term capital gain at Rs.95,90,000/-. We note that ld. Assessing Officer has made addition for the total sale consideration treating it as capital asset whereas the assessee is claiming it to be Agricultural land and not capital asset and therefore not liable to tax. Admittedly, assessee failed to furnish details before the Assessing Officer and subsequently even though the details were filed before ld.CIT(A) but the appeal has been dismissed on account of delay. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay submitted by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). Assessee with the support of Medical Certificate placed on record stated that at the relevant point of time he was facing some medical issue. We have perused the Medical Certificate. The certificate is issued by Dr. Sachin Shivnitwar, MD General Medical, Samarth Clinic wherein it is stated that the assessee is under his treatment for Epilepsy during the month of July and August, 2024. Further, it is also stated that assessee is dependent on the old Tax Consultant which took some time to put the papers together.

On going through the reasons for delay along with supporting documents, we find that delay is not intentional and assessee has not gained anything in filing the appeal belatedly. We are convinced with the reasons so stated by the assessee and condone the delay of 171 days before ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) .

Considering the above facts as demonstrated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we in the larger interest justice give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case on merit and without dwelling upon the merits of the case remit back all the issues raised for the impugned assessment year under appeal to the file of ld.Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld. JAO in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.