YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), RAIPUR, RAIPUR
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 challenged additions of Rs. 79,85,000 (long-term capital gain on land sale based on stamp duty value) and Rs. 73,38,553 (undisclosed investment from cash deposits and increased turnover). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance, prompting the assessee to file an appeal with the ITAT, which was delayed by 339 days.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 339-day delay in filing the appeal, noting no intentional or mala fide delay by the assessee. It found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal; validity of the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing; additions related to long-term capital gain on land sale and undisclosed investment; and the need for referring valuation to a DVO.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 50C, Section 50C(2), Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 142A, Section 44AD, Section 139, Section 250(4), Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 28.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2014-15, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2018, passed by Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (in short “Ld. AR”).
2 Yogesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO-4(5), Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: Gr. No. 1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id C[T(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.79,85,000 on long term capital gain on sale of land by applying sec 50C(J) without referring the matter to DVO for valuation of such land u/s 50C(2) when 'actual sale consideration' is less than the 'stamp duty value', matter is liable to be referred to DVO for valuation; action of the AO/ CIT(A) without following procedure laid down in sec 50C(2) is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside to file of AO for referring the matter lo DVO for computing its fair market value on the date of transfer, relied on Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC); Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) (Raipur-Trib); Ram Sharan Yadav (2022) (Raipur-Trib). Gr. No. 2 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.73,38,553 on the count of undisclosed investment which is unjustified & is liable to be deleted.” Gr. No. 3 "The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any ground/s before or at the time of hearing."
At the outset, it is noticed that the present matter is barred by limitation, being the filing of appeal before us has been delayed by 339 days. The assessee was informed through a defect memo to remove this defect. In compliance, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Counsel of the assessee along with affidavit signed by the assessee and another affidavit signed by the regular counsel of the assessee, clarifying that the notice from the office of Ld. CIT(A) has been received in the email ID ‘sverma70@India.com’, which is not frequently used by the assessee. It is further explained that in Form No. 35 before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has 3 Yogesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO-4(5), Raipur mentioned the email ID of its counsel / CA, Shri Manoj Keshwani, the email ID is ‘skc.itr@gmail.com’. It is also declared by the assessee in the affidavit that for taxation matter, the assessee is fully dependent on the aforesaid regular counsel. It is submitted that the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) was an ex-parte order passed on 28.03.2024, dismissing the appeal of assessee. However, the assessee was unaware about the passing of such order, which was communicated on the email ID of the regular counsel, for the reason that it was not informed by the regular Counsel of the assessee, as one of the staff of the aforesaid counsel i.e., CA Pavan Karmele, who is looking after this matter had committed a mistake that he did not saw the email and thus, have not informed the counsel on time. As in present case, the counsel of the assessee had not informed him within the available time for filing of appeal before the ITAT, the delay had occurred on account of mistake on the part of office of the regular Counsel, therefore, Ld. AR prayed that there was no intentional / mala fide delay on the part of assessee and as soon as the assessee was informed by the regular Counsel, necessary action has been taken to file the present appeal.
On this issue, Ld. Sr. DR objected that the delay occasioned is an extraordinary delay for an exorbitant period of 339 days, therefore, the same should not be allowed, as the explanation offered by the Ld. AR of the 4 Yogesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO-4(5), Raipur assessee does not constitute sufficient cause for which the delay can be condoned. Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that the delay was occasioned on account of the mistake committed by the regular Counsel under casual approach.
Though, we find substance in the argument of the Ld. Sr. DR and also find that there was a careless approach emanating from the affidavit of the regular Counsel, Shri Manoj Keshwani that his office was not vigilant to take necessary and timely actions towards the duties entrusted upon them by the assessee, however, we cannot put the entire blame on the assessee to place him in a worst position, as the delay was occurred due to careless approach of the regular counsel, further there is no proof or counter affidavit furnished by the revenue to bring on record any default on the part of assessee, which can be taken as an intentional or deliberate error for occurrence of such delay. In terms of aforesaid observations, as there is no intentional / deliberate or mala fide attempt prove in the conduct of the assessee, we find that there is sufficient cause by which the assessee was prevented to file the present appeal in time. Further, taking support from the order of Hon’ble Apex Ward-2, Ambikapur, SLP (Civil) Nos. 268310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, wherein it is held that while dealing with the condonation of delay
5 Yogesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO-4(5), Raipur a justice-oriented and liberal approach ought to have adopted. Respectfully following the analogy drawn by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and in terms of our aforesaid observations, the delay of 339 days in the present appeal stands condoned.
Coming to the facts of the present case, as emanating from the records, the assessee Shri Yogesh Verma is an individual, who filed his Return of Income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs. 3,13,170/-. Subsequently, the notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2018, since as per information available with the department, during the relevant FY, the assessee had purchased an immovable property of Rs.1,49,85,000/- and while making the said financial transaction, the assessee had not furnished his PAN to the
