HARSHAL ASHOK SURVE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 939 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. Main reason stated for the delay is that Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Tax Consultant who was handling the case expired and assessee is not aware of the proceedings and could not effectively pursue the matter.

On due consideration of the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of 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) condone the delay of 939 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld. Assessing Officer erred in making the addition under long term capital gain at Rs.2,94,729/-.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. Based on the information about sale of immovable property by the assessee and having not filed return of income, notice u/s.148 of the Act issued and assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act carried out. However, assessee failed to appear before the ld. Assessing Officer resulting into passing of Best Judgment Assessment and considering the fact that Development Agreement of the immovable property assessee has been entered by the assessee along with other 11 members, ld. AO applied 1/12th share to the consideration mentioned in the Agreement at Rs.35,36,750/- and made addition of Rs.2,94,729/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to make any compliance and apparently few notices of hearing falling during the period relating to covid-19 pandemic restrictions. Ld.CIT(A) applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multi Plan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) dismissed the appeal in limine.

Before this Tribunal, assessee is contending that assessee has only entered into any Agreement but did not receive any consideration during A.Y. 2011-12. Further, capital gain has been calculated without allowing indexed cost of acquisition including stamp duty valuation as on 01.04.2001 and further assessee is also eligible for deduction u/s.54/54F of the Act.

However, considering the fact that assessee failed to appear before both the lower authorities and since the assessee has now placed various details in the form of paper book providing the details of Development Agreement, Actual receipt of Flat from Builder and other relevant details, we in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional assessing Officer. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id 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. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.