Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 30 lakh, while the Stamp Duty Authority determined its value at Rs. 75,90,000/-. The AO added the difference of Rs. 45,90,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 50-day delay, attributed to the assessee's mother's illness.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merit and did not properly consider the Supreme Court's decision on condonation of delay. Therefore, the case is restored to the CIT(A) for deciding on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the reasons provided and whether the matter should be decided on merit.
Sections Cited
69, 56(2)(vii)(b), 270A, 272A(1)(d), 271AAC, 234A, 234B, 234C, 148, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.30,00,000/-u/s 69 treating the same as source of income for purchase of property and added to the income of the assessee.
The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.45,90,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) treating the same as difference between the Stamp Duty Value and purchase value and added to the income of the assessee.
3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the income tax act.
The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the income tax act.
Nayab Siddiqui A.Y. 2017-18 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the income tax act. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest 234A,234B and 234C of the act. 7. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,41,255/- was filed on 25.03.2018. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021 on the basis of information received that assessee has purchased an immovable property on 29.04.2016 for a consideration of Rs. 30 lakh whereas the Stamp Value Authority has determined the value of property at Rs. 75,90,000/-. Accordingly, the AO has added an amount of Rs. 45,90,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit and dismissed the same on the ground that there was a delay of 50 days in filing of the appeal.
4. Before us, the ld. Counsel filed an affidavit dated 20.02.2025 by which it is submitted that due to chronic sickness of the mother of the assessee there was delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay without any valid reason and requested to provide opportunity to the assessee at the level of First Appellate Authority for deciding the case of the assessee on merit Nayab Siddiqui A.Y. 2017-18 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is noticed that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has categorically reported in Form No. 35 that there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal because of sickness of his mother of the assessee as the assessee engaged in getting her treatment from doctors. The ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the marginal delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the matter on merit. We find that ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 dated 19.12.1987 properly wherein held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merit.
Looking to the above facts and findings, we restore the case of the assessee to the file of the First Appellate Authority for deciding on merit as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say that due opportunity should be given to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2025.