KALABHAI KARSHANBHAI PATEL,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR

O R D E R

PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 1890 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The assessee, by way of a notarized affidavit, explained that he has entrusted the matter to a Chartered Accountant and he has outsourced the filing of appeal before the CIT(A) to another Chartered Accountant at Ahmedabad. Whereas, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the DVO’s valuation for the purpose of determining the value of Kalabhai Karshanbhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– the property u/s 50C of the Act in the case of another co-owner. However, this order was not communicated by the Chartered Accountant, which has resulted in a huge delay of filing the above appeal. Thus, the assessee requested to condone the delay and submitted that since the assessee is one of the co-owners of the property, the entire addition u/s 50C of the Act made in the hands of the assessee is against the provisions of law and assessee’s proportionate share of income is to be assessed and taxed.

“1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 without considering the submissions made by appellant is bad in law and deserves to be cancelled.

3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition to the tune Rs. 40,88,000/- under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal

either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” Kalabhai Karshanbhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3–

5. The Ld. Counsel, appearing for the assessee, considering the huge delay in filing the appeal, submitted before us, raising Ground No.3, in setting aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to recompute 50C valuation, based on the DVO’s valuation report in the case of other co-owner and also submitted before us calculation of capital gains in the case of the assessee with cost of indexation. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, we note that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order making entire addition u/s 50C as assessee’s share and without calculating the cost of acquisition. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal with the direction to the Assessing Officer to rework the computation of capital gains for determining the valuation u/s 50C of the Act by adopting the DVO’s value determined in the case of other co-owner and also the cost of acquisition of the property, in accordance with the law, by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.