TAPAN DAS,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), , SILIGURI

There is a delay of 118 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee was suffered from health issues due to which Assessee did could not file the appeal on time. Thus, sought for condonation of the delay in filing the present Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present appeal. The Assessee, in the application for condonation of delay, contended that the Assessee was suffered from health issues due to which Assessee did could not file the appeal on time before the Tribunal within the prescribed time.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 118 days in filing the present appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.4,55,242/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” and Assessment Order came to be passed on 16.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition to

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee only pressed Ground No.5 and contended that the Assessing Officer committed grave error in rejecting the request of the Assessee for referral to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), which is in violation of provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) both have erred in law and passed respective orders in violation of provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. Thus, sought for allowing Ground No.5 of the Assessee’s Appeal.

Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessee has not proved the source of income and the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, sought for dismissal of the ground of the Assessee.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is evident from the Assessment Order, the Assessee has indeed requested for referring the matter to DVO. However, the Assessing

In view of the above, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to comply with the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act. The Assessee is also directed to prove the source of the consideration paid while purchasing the property in question. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment afresh.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.