Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 449 days due to the assessee not receiving the order from the CIT(A). The assessee claims the delay was due to communication errors regarding the email address for notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause and merit in the assessee's application. The appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and if the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
148, 50C, 48
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Mohammed Saheed cuke The ITO C/o R.S. Poonia, CA Vs. Ward -Dausa D-82B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur – 302 015 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AYPPS 4404 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 20-11-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case Id. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the order passed by the Ld. A.O. which is liable to be quashed. Kindly quash the same.
SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition Rs. 1,06,22,100/ on account of Short term capital gain. Kindly delete the same.
2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 449 days in filing appeal for which the assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay with the prayer to condone the delay as the assessee has not received the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus delay occurred in filing the appeal before ITAT. The relevant submission as made in the application for condonation of delay is as under:- ‘’Sub: Regarding acceptance of application for condonation of delay in case of Shri Mohammed Saheed having appeal No. (PAN:AYPPS4404D). Respected Members, With reference to above subject we request you that:-
1. 1. That appellant is an individual and belong to a rural area.
2. That appellant filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 24.04.2025 against the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC dated 20.11.2023 (i.e. with a delay of 449 days). The appeal number is ITA 659/JPR/2025.
That at the time of filing of appeal before CIT (Appeals), the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 for communication was CAPOONIARSNEW@GMAIL.COM (i.e. belongs appellant's counsel). to SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA 4. That all notices and orders of CIT (Appeals) were communicated to email address of appellant's earlier counsel (i.e. CA RAMBABU GUPTA@YAHOO.COM) instead of email address given in Form No. 35.
That appellant and his new counsel, who filed the appeal before CIT (Appeal) was unaware about the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, dated 20.11.2023.
That in the month of April, 2025, appellant visited the office of his counsel regarding the status of appeal and then appellant's counsel checked the income tax portal and informed appellant about the ex- parte order of CIT (Appeals), NFAC dated 20.11.2023.
Then, thereafter appellant prepare and filed the appeal immediately before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 24.04.2025 against the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC with a delay of 449 days.
That the delay of 449 days was due to unaware about the adverse order dated 20.11.2023.
That appellant was unaware about the adverse order passed by CIT (Appeals) and same is the bonafide reason of delay in filing of appeal which is beyond my control. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 449 days. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.’’ To this effect, the assessee Shri Mohammed Saheed (Deponent) has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above facts mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR did not controvert the facts stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay.
SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the affidavit of assessee. In this case, the Bench in nutshell noted that there is sufficient cause in not timely filing the appeal by the assessee and there is merit in the application of the assessee. Thus, the delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld .CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not made any submission before NFAC nor submitted any evidence in support of grounds of appeals. The narrations so made by the ld CIT(A) para 5.3 to para 6 of his order are reproduced as under:- ‘’5.3 As discussed above, the appellant has not made any submissions before NFAC nor submitted any evidences in support of grounds of appeal. 5.4 In ground of appeal No.1. the appellant has claimed that the issue of notice u/s.148 is bad in law and facts. However, it is noted that the assessment was reopened based on information available with the AO forming reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment as discussed in the assessment order Further, assessment proceedings were initiated after obtaining approval of prescribed authority and were completed after issuing of statutory notices and providing adequate opportunities to the appellant. Therefore, ground of appeal No.1 is dismissed as the claims made are not found correct 5.5 In ground of appeal No.2, the appellant has disputed the addition made on account of short term capital gains by merely claiming that the appellant denies the 50C value of the property and that the AO has not appreciated/considered the material available on record. However, it has not been clarified before the NFAC as to what material is being referred by the appellant in disputing the valuation done by the sub registrar u/s 50C of the Act. As per SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA Section 50C, if the value of consideration received/accrued/shown by the appellant is less than the value adopted/assessed by any authority of the State Govt for the purpose of stamp duty (Stamp Valuation Authority), then the value so adopted/assessed for the purpose of Section 48 shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration received/accrued as a result of such transfer. The case of the appellant is not covered by the exceptions and further the appellant has not given any reason or basis for not accepting the valuation of the commercial land done by the sub registrar In such circumstances, the deeming provisions of Section 50C are squarely applicable in the instant case and there is no error in the order of the AO in this regard. The appellant has failed to submit any details, reasons or evidences in support of this ground of appeal
. Therefore, ground of appeal No.2 is dismissed. 5.6. Ground No.3 is general in nature and hence stands dismissed.
6. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had not received any communication from the ld.CIT(A) as the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) was at the E-Mail of earlier Counsel i.e. CA RAMBABU GUPTA @YAHOO.COM instead of E-Mail address given in Form No. 35 i.e. CAPOONIARSNEWS@GMAIL.COM (i.e. belongs to appellant’s counsel). Hence, the assessee could not adduce the evidences / submissions before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee during the course of hearing submitted that the Crux of dispute is difference between the sale consideration & value adopted by the AO u/s 50C for calculation of capital gain. He submitted that Actual sale consideration was only Rs. 25.00 Lakhs and value adopted by the AO u/s 50C is Rs.
SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA 1,31,22,100/-. Hence there is a huge difference between them. The ld. AR further argued that the dispute is related to facts and the issue needs deep investigation as well as reasons of such heavy difference in the sale consideration amount. The ld.AR further submitted that during the assessment the assessee himself attended only one hearing & given simple reply without documentary evidences. Now the ld. AR requested for one more opportunity to explain the reasons of difference & justification of correctness of sale consideration before the AO and prayed to send back the file to the AO for fresh adjudication. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR had not raised any objection to restore back the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is noted from the assessment order where the AO verified that the property sold was commercial property and the value of the property was taken by the Sub-Registrar was Rs.1,31,22,100/- whereas the assessee has only disclosed Rs.25.00 lacs against the said sales. The assessee in response to notice u/s 148 reiterated the income shown in the original return of income and the AO proceeded with the assessment on different dates by issuing statutory notices and raised various queries as mentioned in the assessment order. The assessee has merely claimed that SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA the valuation given by Sub-Registrar is not correct and that the sale proceeds shown by him are correct. However, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and considered the stamp duty valuation as per Sub-Registrar and therefore, added the difference as short term capital gain of Rs.1,06,22,100/-. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had failed to submit any details, reasons or evidence in support of the grounds of appeal raised before him. In the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the appeal be restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication before him as the assessee could not adduce the documentary evidences before the AO and also could not explain the reasons of difference and justification of correctness of sale consideration. In view of the request of the ld.AR of the assessee, the Bench feels that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to contest the case before the AO with a view to settling the dispute in question. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.