MOHAMMED IZHAR MOHAMMED ISMAIL CHAUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), MUMBAI

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer of not allowing the exemption under section 54F disregarding the legal position that when entire amount of sale consideration had been invested in the new house property, entire capital gains would be exempted under section 54F and the provisions of section 50C would not be applicable in calculating the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer of adopting the Stamp Duty Value of Rs. 22,26,000/- as full value of Consideration without referring the valuation of plot of land to Departmental Valuation Officer as mandated by Sub-section (2) of Section 50C of the Act.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order dated 15.10.2022 under section 250 thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice.”

The present appeal is delayed by 856 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, which is duly supported by the affidavit executed by the assessee. In the affidavit, the assessee has made the following submissions: – “1. That the impugned order dated 15.10.2022 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed by Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016- 17. No physical copy of the impugned order was ever served upon me. The impugned order was sent vide Email which was missed by me as the same was received in spam folder.

That in mid of March 2025, my chartered Accountant logged into my income tax e-filing account and checked the status of appeal proceedings. It was only then I became aware of the order dated 15.10.2022 passed under section 250 by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre CIT(A).

That it was because of this reason; I could not file appeal within the statutory limitation period of 60 days. Hence, this affidavit is being made in support of my application to the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to condone the delay in filing of appeal.” 3

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), by referring to Form no.35 filed before the learned CIT(A), submitted that the assessee submitted explicitly before the learned CIT(A) that the notices/communication may not be sent by email. The learned AR by referring to para-5 of the impugned order submitted that all the notices were issued during the COVID pandemic. Thus, the learned AR submitted that neither the notices issued during the appellate proceedings were received by the assessee physically, nor was the impugned order sent to the assessee by post. Accordingly, in light of the submissions made in the affidavit and the facts stated above, the learned AR submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal was not intentional, and thus, prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal. Having considered submissions and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on the merits.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis of non- compliance with notices, without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on their merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 4

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/09/2025 RENU JAUHRI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER