Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was dismissed due to non-compliance. The assessee sought condonation of delay for 301 days due to health issues and lack of technical knowledge. The assessee had entered into a development agreement for ancestral land and subsequently sold her share of the constructed area, leading the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings for capital gains.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 301 days, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. The Tribunal acknowledged the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the incorrect computation of capital gains. To meet the principle of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's health issues and lack of technical understanding? Whether the capital gains were correctly computed by the AO, considering the nature of the transaction and the assessee's compliance status?
Sections Cited
133(6), 147, 148, 2(47)(v), 45, 48
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘SMC’ BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ)
Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar PAN/GIR No. AINPS 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT Date of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 06.06.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The appeal is time barred by 301 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating that at the time of ld CIT(A) passed the order, the assessee was suffering from spine diseases and also eye disease i.e. Glucoma. Due to this fact, she was not unable to look after her day-to-day business. It is also stated that assessee being a lady was not conversant with P a g e 1 | 5 the computer system and the notices were not in her knowledge regarding the first appellate proceedings, for which, no submissions as well as paper book was filed. Only after contacting her tax consultant to know about the appeal filed before the ld CIT(A), she could know about the dismissal of the appeal filed before the ld CIT(A). Immediately, she contacted the tax professional and filed the appeal. It was in this backdrop there was delay in filing of appeal. It is prayed that the delay of 301 days may kindly be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition.
After considering the condonation petition, I am satisfied that there was reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time and, hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and a regular income tax assessee. The Assessing Officer got information under section 133(6) of the Act that the assessee is having piece of ancestral land of 13503.6 sq.ft in the name of six persons and all are family members. The assessee jointly made a development agreement with Jammano Shree Estate Private Limited for construction of the building. Accordingly, to the development agreement, the assessee is having 45 percent share out of total constructed area. The assessee sold his share of flat in A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. Therefore, the AO initiated proceedings for reassessment u/s.147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee. In response to notice, the assessee filed return of income. The Assessing Officer opined that P a g e 2 | 5 since the assessee had relinquished ownership right over his share by entering into development agreement, as such, the provision of section 53A of T.P. Act attracted the capital gain arising out of such transfer as per the provision of section 2(47) (v) 45 and 48 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gain of Rs.13,50,589/- and created demand accordingly. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal but without any success, as the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard ld Sr DR and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. In the ground of appeal, the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer erred in computing capital gain in the assessment year 2015-16 as the assessee neither transferred nor relinquish the right and title in the land nor has received sell consideration, therefore, no capital has arisen and the addition is bad in law. It is also evident that the assessment order has been passed u/s.144 of the Act as the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide
P a g e 3 | 5 one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the CIT(A) failing which the ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/ 09/2025.