PRIYANTH MEENATCHI,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW-2(3), MADURAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of real estate and construction activity and has filed her return of income on 26.07.2022 for the A.Y.2022-23, declaring total income of Rs.6,88,120/-. Based on the information available with the department, the AO observed that the assessee has made sale of immovable property to the tune of Rs.90,31,052/- but capital gain was not declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee submitted part reply without documentary evidence in support of the claim for verification. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee and material available on record, the AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 21.03.2024 by making an addition of Rs.90,31,052/- as short term capital gain and by arriving a total income of Rs.97,19,172/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 29.06.2024 with a delay in filing an appeal.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine due to the assessee filing an appeal with delay of 70 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not file an appeal before the first appellate authority within stipulated time limit due to poor health conditions during the relevant period. Further, the ld.AR argued that as against LTCG, authorities below erred in adding the entire sale consideration of Rs.90,31,052/- as short term capital gains, even though the same is not taxable because as the transction is on account of acquisition land of the assessee by Special Tehsildar (ADWA), Virudhunagar. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee has filed an appeal with delay of 70 days. The assessee has been negligent in filing an appeal within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the information available with the department and partly submission made by the assessee and on appeal the same has been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the first appellate authority.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and in order to advance the cause of substantial justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned, as the assessee has duly set out the reasons for such delay in Form No. 35, which, in our considered opinion, constitutes sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and to furnish necessary written submissions and relevant evidence, as may be called for, in a timely manner.

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