SOLARAJU NARAYAN RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), BENGALURU

In all the appeals, the issues are common which are as follows: The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s place was searched on 28/02/2008 based on the JDA found during the search of one Shri I. Mahabaleshwarappa & Shri Ittina Properties P. Ltd. in which the assessee and the Developer had agreed to develop the land owned by the assessee,

Against the said rectification orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) also issued several hearing notices to the assessee and dismissed all the appeals for the non-appearance of the assessee.

As against the said orders, the present appeals are filed by the assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 461 days.

The assessee filed a detailed application narrating the circumstances for the delay. The assessee had also submitted that the appeals were instituted 10 years before the disposal of the appeals and therefore the assessee had lost sight of the appeals. The assessee also submitted that his parents were also passed away and his personal and professional commitments also caused a laxity in following the appeal. Further, because of the then Ld.AR’s cessation of the professional activity and finding a new AR thereafter, all are the reasons for the delay and prayed to condone the delay. The assessee also submitted if the appeals are not decided on merits, great prejudice would be cause to him, on the other hand no prejudice

We have considered the submissions made by the assessee and the reasons stated in the delay condonation application and also by considering the judicial precedents that substantive justice has to be done to the parties, we are condoning the said delays in filing this appeal and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is having a good case on merits and also the appeals filed by the assessee’s parents were allowed by this Tribunal and also furnished the copies of the said order. The Ld.AR submitted that because of some miscommunication, he was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) even though on two occasions, adjournment was sought for by the Ld.AR. The Ld.AR further submitted that the reasons stated for the delay condonation is also relevant for the non-appearance of the assessee and prayed for an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) on terms also.

The Ld.DR submitted that neither the assessee appeared before the LD.CIT(A) nor filed this appeal in time and therefore he deserves no lenience and prayed to dismiss the appeals.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record and decided to take up the appeals together and pass a common order.

It is seen from the facts, the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 07/08/2003 but not disclosed the LTCG during the A.Y. 2004-05. Subsequently, based on the search, the assessee had filed their return of income for the three A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008- 09. Thereafter the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu in ITA No.

Considering the fact that the issue has to be adjudicated on merits and also considering the fact that the appeals were decided ex-parte, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeals on merits. We are granting this opportunity to the assessee on condition that the assessee should pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for each A.Y. towards the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund by way of cost within a period of four week from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the assessee will not get the benefit of this order.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.