SIMON PAVAN KUMAR MOSES,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANG AL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 557/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 November 2025AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a 'reasonable and sufficient cause' for the delay, attributing it to unfamiliarity with the Income Tax Departmental portal. Regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), the Tribunal upheld them. For long-term capital gains, the Tribunal found no error in the AO's reasoning to assess Rs. 1,80,991/- based on the difference between the sale consideration and the Fair Market Value as per Section 50C, as the assessee failed to appear and explain the case with relevant evidence. Similarly, the additions of Rs. 2,06,695/- towards deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A were upheld because the assessee did not furnish documentary evidence. The addition of Rs. 483/- towards interest income was also upheld, as the assessee had earned this interest from a savings bank account and had not offered it to tax. The Tribunal found no error in the AO's assessment of this income under 'income from other sources'. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Simon Pavan Kumar Moses, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula, dated 20.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13. There was a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the delay by stating unfamiliarity with the Income Tax Departmental portal. The Revenue did not strongly object to the condonation of delay. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. The assessment was re-opened under Section 147 due to escaped income from under-assessment of capital gains. A notice under Section 148 was issued, but the assessee did not furnish a return. Subsequently, a best judgment assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed on 13.12.2019, determining total income at Rs. 3,88,170/-. This included additions of Rs. 1,80,991/- for long-term capital gains, Rs. 2,06,695/- for deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, and Rs. 483/- for interest income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution as no submissions were furnished.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, and if so, whether the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay? - Assessee: Argued that the delay was due to unawareness of the departmental portal's operational process and sought condonation. The delay was neither wilful nor intended to gain undue benefit. - Revenue: Did not strongly object to the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions towards long-term capital gains, deductions under Chapter VI-A, and interest income? - Assessee: Did not appear before the Tribunal and made no submissions regarding the merits of the additions. - Revenue: Supported the additions made by the AO. The AO had noted that the property was sold for Rs. 83,60,000/- while the Fair Market Value was Rs. 1,42,35,000/-, leading to an addition under Section 50C. The AO also made additions for Chapter VI-A deductions and interest income due to lack of evidence and non-offering to tax, respectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

For Respondent: Ms. B. Malathi, Sr.A.R
Pronounced: 28.11.2025

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Simon Pavan Kumar Moses, 6-1-52, Opp. St. Pauls School, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Hanamkonda. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Warangal.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →