Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, dated 25.10.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13 challenging the appellate order of the dismissal of appeal for condonation of delay of 704 in filing the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that during the FY 2011-12 relevant to the AY 2012-13, the assessee (Minor) has received a sum of ₹.3,00,000/- by demand draft and a sum of ₹.7,08,333/- by way of cash toward his share for the sale consideration of their ancestral property at L.B. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. But, as per the guideline value of the registration department, the actual sale consideration should be ₹.31,52,300/- [(100,04,00,000/32,00,00,000)*10,08,333] and the assessee had not filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13. Hence, the Assessing Officer reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] to bring the difference of ₹.21,43,968/- for taxation purpose. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.04.2014 and duly served on the assessee. In response to the above notice, the assessee e-filed his return of income relevant to the assessment year 2012-13 on 27.01.2016 declaring an income of ₹.2,46,365/-. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were duly served on the assessee. In response to the above notices, the AR of the assessee furnished relevant documents in support of the claim of the assessee.
2.1 On perusal of the above documents, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee along with his family members executed an irrevocable power of attorney dated 03.05.2011 in favour of one Shri. K.K. Ajeeth Kumaar vide which the assessee along with other members of his family have given the power to make negotiation and sale of property at No.140, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Kancheepuram District owned by the assessee along with other family members. The area of the property was 4 Acres and 52 Cents co-owned by the assessee along with other family members. Further, the assessee along with other family members entered into an agreement with one, Shri S.S. Albert Selvam on the same day for selling their share of property out of the total property for a total consideration of ₹.1,00,00,000/-. On enquiry, the AR of the assessee stated that the land belonged to the ancestors of the assessee and the assessee was not aware of the availability of the above property. The assessee's family was never in possession of the parent documents of the above the said property and the same is not available for verification. On further enquiry, the Assessing Officer found that the above said property was sold by family members including the assessee by Minor S.ARISH and 63 others for a total consideration of ₹.32,00,00,000/ - to M/s. Pee and Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited through sale deed No.l0756/2011 registered with Joint Registrar, South Saidapet, Chennai on 07.10.2011. The market value of the above property, as per the Stamp Valuing Authority is ₹.100,04,00,000/-. During the hearing on 26.02.2016, the Assessing Officer requested the AR of the assessee to offer his explanation why the value of the stamp valuing authority should not be adopted as per section 50C of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer observed from the sale deed of the above property transaction that the assessee has received an amount of ₹.3,00,000/- through demand draft No. 441080 dated 31.03.2011 drawn on Axis Bank, Mylapore Branch. The Assessing Officer worked out the share of the sale consideration apart from demand draft at ₹.7,08,333/- by cash in respect of the assessee. The assessee has not offered the above cash receipt in his Return of Income filed. In respect of adoption of value under section 50C of the Act, the assessee has not given any reply. Hence, the Assessing Officer calculated the income from capital gain under section 50C of the Act at ₹.28,52,301/- and added to the total income of the assessee.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 704 days in filing of the appeal. Since there was no sufficient reasonable cause to condone the delay and the only reason for the delay given before the appellate authority was professional commitment of his auditor which was not convinced, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice of hearing was issued and served on the assessee [RPAD on record]. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.03.2016, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) belatedly on 04.04.2018. For the delay of 704 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the reason for the delay given in the condonation petition as reproduced in the appellate order are as under: “As my Auditor was preoccupied with his Professional commitments, I could not able to file appeal papers within the period of 30 days. Therefore, I request you to kindly condone the delay in the filing appeal documents.” Since the above explanation given in the condonation petition for condoning the delay was not convinced and there was no sufficient causes to condone the delay of 704 days, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before us, the assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. The Appellant had appealed before CIT (Appeal)-14, and submitted all the relevant documents in support of his appeal. The learned CIT (Appeal)-14, had dismissed the appeal since there was a delay of 704 days in filing the appeal.
2. The Appellant's aunt at his home, who is suffering from psychiatric disorder had received and misplaced the assessment order under section 143 (3) r.w.s.147 and demand notice. This had resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. The copies of proof of the medical treatment of the Appellant's aunt are attached.
3. The Appellant came to know about his case only when he received a demand notice in his name on 29.11.2017. Until then the Appellant was not aware about the same. Later on, the Appellant approached his representative Shri. V. Elangovan, CA who obtained a copy of the assessment order from the assessing officer.
4. The Appellant's representative Shri. V. Elangovan, CA was preoccupied with his year end professional commitments; hence the appeal could not be filed before 31st March 2018. Nevertheless the appeal was filed before CIT (Appeal)-14 on 04.04.2018 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5. The Appellant is also one among his family members who had preferred group of appeals having a common issue. In all other family members cases the appeal was filed in time and the order was passed in their favor.
6. The Appellant's Father and Mother are also among the family members who had preferred group of appeals having a common issue. In their case also the appeal was filed in time and the order was passed in their favor.
7. The Appellant would have won his case had he filed the appeal in time. The Appellant prays to adopt a liberal view while condoning delay on the principle that technicalities should not prevail over the cause of justice.
8. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 has not heard the case & passed the Suo motu Order. If he would have heard the case then the Appellant would produce additional grounds to support his appeal claimed.
9. The Appellant is a student and it will be an overburden on him to pay the huge tax liability, if the delay in filing his appeal is not condoned.
10. That the Appellant had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.
11. The delay was not occasioned deliberately or on account of any culpable negligence or on account of malafide on the part of the Appellant 12. There were also no reasons to show that the Appellant had resorted to any dilatory tactics.”
On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find that to give some reason for the delay, it appears that the assessee has stated that the assessment order was received by his aunt who was suffering from psychiatric disorder and filed old medical history of his aunt. The assessee has clearly admitted that his father, mother and other family members have preferred further appeal against the assessment in their cases; we are of the opinion that intentionally the assessee has jeopardized the interest of the revenue by delaying in filing belated appeal without any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay.
8. Since the assessee has failed to show sufficient reasonable cause for filing the appeal beyond the stipulated time before the ld. CIT(A), the condonation petition filed by the assessee was rejected and the appeal of the assessee was rightly dismissed. Our view find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha v. ACIT [2009] 317 ITR 458, “wherein the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the order of this Tribunal since the assessee had not taken proper plea to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal”. In the present case, the negligent attitude of the assessee cannot be taken care to preserve the right of appeal since the assessee has slept over for 704 days and not explained sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 9th April, 2021 in Chennai.