SOMESH PARNAMI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in making addition of Rs. 25,02,750/- under the head "short-term capital gain" on sale of immovable property, arbitrarily.

1. That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming action of ld.AO in making addition of entire stamp duty value of Rs.25,02,750/-of sale of property (sale consideration of property was Rs.18,00,000/-) without allowing deduction on account of cost of acquisition. Appellant prays that taxing of gross Stamp duty value is against the principle of taxation, according to which only net income can be taxed and therefore addition made by Id.AO deserves to be deleted.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,11,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the year under consideration by considering the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, arbitrarily. Appellant prays that deposits made in bank account are fully explained and therefore addition made by Ld. AO deserves to be deleted.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.”

1 “In the aforesaid context, it is humbly submitted that order u/s 250 was passed by Ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee on 31.10.2023, which stood uploaded on the e portal of assessee. Against the order so passed, appeal could have been filed within 60 days, from date on which order was passed. However, the appeal got delayed by 376 days, as the appeal was filed on 10.01.2025 for the reasons as explained below: 1. That, the order u/s 250 was passed by CIT(A), NFAC on 31.10.2023. 2. That, the assessee was suffering from Parkinsons disease coupled with other medical problems and is unable to keep track of the notices issued against him. This prevented him from following up on the notices issued against him. Necessary copy of medical certificate in this regard has been enclosed herein. 3. Thus, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is absolutely inadvertent and has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of assessee. 4. That, the assessee always has acted in a bona fide manner and the delay is of only 376 days. In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to yourgoodself to please accept the application/prayer of the condonation of delay which is merely of 376 days and to please be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits.” 2.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by assessee (supra) for condonation of delay of 376 days are sufficient to condone the delay which has merit. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay of 376 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noted from the assessment order that the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of LT. Act, 1961 after getting prior approval of competent authority on the basis of information that during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y 2012-13, the assessee had sold an immovable property on 19.09.2011 situated at Plot No. J-1230 in Sitapura Industrial Area, Sanganer, Jaipur for sale consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The stamp duty authority valued the property at Rs. 25,02,750/- for stamp duty purpose. It is noted that Notice U/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2019. The assessee did not make any compliance to the notice U/s 148 of the I. T. Act. Thereafter, Notice U/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued on 10.06.2019.11.07.2019 and 27.07.2019 fixing date for furnishing of details / documents/information on 19.06.2019, 19.07.2019 and 06.08.2019 respectively. The assessee neither made any compliance nor sought any adjournment in response to notice issued U/s142(1) of the 1.T.Act. Further a notice U/s 142(1) along with show cause notice for ex- parte assessment giving last and final opportunity to the assessee issued on 10.10.2019 fixing date for filing of details/documents on 16.10.2019 stating in case of non attendance the matter will be decided on merit as per the material available on the face of record U/s 144 of the IT. Act i.e assessment as per the best judgment of the LT Act. In compliance to show cause notice the assessee filed reply on ITBA portal and requested for adjournment for 15 days. Considering the request of the assessee, case was adjourned for 04-11-2019 by the AO. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has not furnished any details / documents. Further a Somesh Parnami vs. ITO 6 notice u/s 142(1) along with show cause for ex-parte assessment giving last and final opportunity to the assessee issued on 13-11-2019 fixing the date for furnishing the details/documents/information on 20-11-2019 stating therein that in case of non submission of details/documents, the matter will be decided on merits as per the material available on the face of record U/s 144 of the I.T. Act i.e. assessment as per the best judgment of the IT Act. Hence, it is noted that the assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 and no capital gain was declared. Information U/s 133(6) was sought from concerned Sub-