Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2010-11, which confirmed two additions: Rs. 5,39,195 for unexplained bank deposits and Rs. 52,79,000 for capital gains on property sale. The appeal was initially time-barred, but the assessee sought condonation of delay citing his employment in the Intelligence Bureau and an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). The original assessment was reopened under Section 148 due to non-filing of ITR and a significant discrepancy between the declared property sale price and the stamp duty valuation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, deeming it a bona fide mistake. It set aside the addition for capital gains, noting that the circle rate had been substantially reduced by the Collector, Mandi, and directed the AO to re-determine the deemed sale consideration, potentially referring the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2). The Tribunal also set aside the addition for unexplained bank deposits for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present a defense. Both the orders of the lower authorities were set aside for fresh examination by the AO.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of addition for unexplained bank deposits. 3. Correct determination of capital gains on property sale, specifically the application of Section 50C and re-valuation based on reduced circle rates.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 50C, 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 05.12.2023 passed for assessment year 2010-11.
This appeal was presented before the Tribunal on 05.07.2024 whereas it ought to have been filed upto 04.02.2024. Thus, the appeal is time barred. The assessee A.Y.2010-11 2 has filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application, it has been pleaded that assessee is working in Intelligence Bureau and remained posted outside. On his visit to his Home Town, he consulted his Tax Consultant about the status of his appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and on verification, it came to his notice that appeal was decided ex- parte. He prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR opposed the prayer of the assessee and submitted that assessee should be vigilant in prosecuting his litigation with the Income Tax Department.
On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deliberate attempt at the end of the assessee to make his appeal time barred. It was a bonafide mistake. He himself cannot keep a tab on the status of the litigation before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide it on merit. A.Y.2010-11 3
A perusal of grounds of appeal would reveal that assessee is challenging two additions made to his total income and confirmed by the CIT(A). These additions are : a) Rs.5,39,195/- added on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account. b) Rs.52,79,000/- added on account of capital gains earned on sale of property.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee has not filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO received an information that assessee has sold a property having value of more than Rs.30 lacs, therefore, he reopened the assessment by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It emerges out from the record that assessee has sold land measuring 60.23 sq.mtr. for a consideration of Rs.4 lacs. According to the AO, value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty was worked out at Rs.60,29,000/-. With the help of Section 50C, ld. AO treated this valuation as deemed sale consideration of the plot and worked out the capital gain assessable in the hands of the assessee. He further observed A.Y.2010-11 4 that assessee did not submit the details of acquisition cost etc.
Before us, it has been pointed out that circle rate for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty has been substantially reduced by the Collector, Mandi. Therefore, the deemed sale consideration is required to be re-determined by the AO.
More so, as per Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, AO ought to have referred the issue to the DVO for determining the Fair Market Value of the property on the date of sale.
The simple reason for this observation is that if Collector has reduced the rates for charging the Stamp Duty, that means under some mistake, earlier rates were declared and therefore, value is required to be determined as per Section 50C sub-section (2) of the Income Tax Act. The AO further determined the cost of acquisition which is required to be reduced from the alleged total sale consideration. Therefore, this issue is required to be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh examination. Accordingly, we set aside both the orders which are ex-parte orders because nothing was produced before the AO also. Accordingly, we set aside both the orders on this issue and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer. A.Y.2010-11 5
As far as the other addition is concerned, we find that addition of Rs.5,39,195/- was made on account of unexplained deposits in the bank. The assessee is a salaried employee. He must have received salary. The addition was made simply for the reason that no reply was submitted by the assessee on this issue. We deem it appropriate to set aside this issue also, so that assessee can put his defence.
Accordingly, both the orders are set aside on this issue also.
It is relegated to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.