N P BHASKAR REDDY(HUF),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2818/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2014-156 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 728 days in filing the appeal. It reasoned that the assessee's explanation for the delay, including issues with email communication and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, fell within the parameters for condonation laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice and that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was proceeded with. The judgment does not record any specific findings or decisions on the substantive grounds of appeal (issues 2 and 3) as it focuses solely on the condonation of delay. The operative direction is to proceed with deciding the appeal on merits, implying that the substantive issues are yet to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, N P BHASKAR REDDY(HUF), filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, challenging an order dated 10/05/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed with a delay of 728 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to issues with email communication, including the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in email addresses of the assessee's representatives. The assessee's initial appeal to the CIT(A) was filed physically on 22/01/2019. The dispute concerns the assessment of Rs. 2,33,15,022/- as Long Term Capital Gains, which the assessee reported as NIL.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 728 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice on the appellant, especially when the initial appeal was filed physically? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961) 3. Whether the learned CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in upholding the assessment of Rs. 2,33,15,022/- as Long Term Capital Gains, contrary to the NIL capital gains reported by the appellant? (Question of law and fact, concerning the computation of capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) 3.1. Whether the assessee correctly regarded the guideline value of the land as on the date of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for computing the full value of consideration? (Question of law and fact, concerning the valuation of consideration for capital gains) 3.2. Whether the full value of consideration as on the date of the JDA dated 02/08/2013 could be determined based on the share of the appellant in the constructed area which was not ascertained on that date, given that the space sharing agreement was entered into subsequently on 30/10/2013? (Question of law and fact, concerning the timing and ascertainment of consideration) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay was unintentional and due to circumstances beyond their control, including pandemic-related issues and email communication failures, falling within the parameters for condonation as per Supreme Court's ruling in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. - The CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without proper physical notice. - The CIT(A)/NFAC erred in assessing Rs. 2,33,15,022/- as LTCG, when NIL capital gains were reported. - The assessee correctly used the guideline value of the land as on the JDA date. - The full value of consideration could not be determined on the JDA date as the extent of built-up area was not ascertainable then. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 10/05/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →