MEERA,JAAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAAIPUR, JAIPUR
`आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 590/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11
Ward-7(1),
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ELPPM4116K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 26/06/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ld.
CIT(A)], for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. The impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated
29.11.2017 as well as the action or proceedings u/s 147/144 are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without juri iction, without approval/ satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, invalid ex-pate order in gross breach of law and against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons
Meera, Jaipur
2
and contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same make kindly be quashed.
The Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in setting aside the assessment order to AO for making a fresh assessment without deciding our legal and other grounds of appeal when all the details were available before him and also was a covered matter by Hon’ble ITAT order in co-owner’s case and had already been examined by the Ld.AO and no new facts or material were to be filed by the assessee. Hence, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law, and hence the same may kindly be quashed.
1 Rs. 18,53,310/-: The ld.AO has grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in making the addition of Rs.18,53,310/- on account of Long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land which is otherwise exempt and the Ld.AO also erred in taking the higher value adopted by the Stamp authority in place of actual consideration mentioned in the sale deed and received by the assessee while determining the Long term capital gain and the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in setting aside the same to the AO without considering the details and material, submission and Hon’ble ITAT order available before him. Hence the addition so made by the AO and set aside by the Ld.CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.
2 The Ld. AO have grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in not allowing the deduction u/s 54B and the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in setting aside the same to the AO on the purchase of the new assets for which the assessee is entitled and Hence the addition so made by the AO is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and make kindly be deleted in full.
The ld.AO has grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case, in charging interest u/s 234A,B,C. The interest so charged is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and hence may kindly be deleted in full.
That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 106 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application explaining the cause of such delay which is supported by an Affidavit. Meera, Jaipur 3 4. We have gone through the averments made in the affidavit and thus, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal in time and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Thus, the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the AO received information from the Director of Income tax(I&CI) Jaipur vide office letter No.DIT(I&CI)/JPR/50C/2013-14/3145 dated 21.02.2014, to the effect that the assessee, along with other members, i.e. Smt. Suji Devi W/o Shri Chhaju Ram and Smt. Santosh Devi, w/o Shri Sharwan R/o Ramalyawas, Tehsil-Amer, Jaipur had sold agriculture land measuring5.93 hectares at khasra number5295 in village/ patwari area/ land Record inspection area-Reengas, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District-Sikar, to Skyway Colonizers, Jaipur, for a sale consideration of Rs.43,50,000/ through sale deed dated17.03.2010 which was executed by the Sub-