GOLDEN REALTY,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 527 & 621/Mum/2025
(Assessment Year: 2018-19)
Golden Reality
617, 6th Floor Tardeo Air
Condition Market Tradeo
Road.
Vs.
DCIT – 19(1)
Piramal Chamber
Lalbaugh.
PAN/GIR No. AAIFG8857D
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by None
Revenue by Ms. Madhura M. Nayak, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
05.05.2025
Date of Pronouncement
27.05.2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 27.06.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. I shall take ITA No.
621/Mum/2025, A.Y 2018-19 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. Whereas on the contrary Ld.
DR present in the court is ready with the arguments.
Therefore I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
4. At the outset, I noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
“The above said Appeal was due to be filed on 25 August 2024
but due to our impression that the case will fall under DTVSV
Scheme 2024 and the matter will be settled as the demand is small and in order to avoid dispute and litigation and the Legal cost involved though the additions made were not agreeable.
But however While trying to file DTVSV application the basic conditions was that there should be an appeal pending then only the scheme can be availed
And as we are not eligible to opt the DTVSV Scheme we left with no other option other than File Appeal.
Hence due to the said reason of wrong understanding we could not file the Appeal in time and therefore requested to condone the delay and admit the Appeal”.
5. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. From the records, I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee upheld the order AO and the operative portion of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para 5.2 and the same reproduced below: 5.2 I have carefully considered the above submission of the appellant, findings of the AO, facts of the case and noticed that the AO has given detailed findings while adding the differential amount of Rs. 9,21,000/- On the other hand it is seen that the appellant made general submission, without bringing any material evidence on record, in support of above contention, hence, not tenable and liable for rejection. In Mumbai the tenancy rights are sold at very high price, as after development/ construction of new building, the owners of the tenancy right get newly constructed flats which generally valued in crores. In view of these facts the sale rate @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per unit, as claimed by the appellant, is at very lower side hence not acceptable. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 9,21,000/-, made by the AO is hereby sustained. All the grounds of appeal are decided accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Thus after considering the facts of the present case I found that no new evidences or documents have been placed on record by the revenue to controvert or rebut the findings of Ld. CIT(A), therefore I see no reasons to interfere in to or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. ITA Nos. 527/Mum/2025 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No 621/Mum/2024 for the A.Y 2018-19 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 27/05/2025
KRK, PS
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.