MR. CYRUS SHROFF,UNITED KINGDOM vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAX) 4(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3487/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was a bonafide and genuine reason for the belated filing of the appeal due to the negligence of the representative's appointed chartered accountant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident Indian residing in the UK, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1430 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay. The assessee's representative appointed a chartered accountant firm to handle the assessment proceedings, but due to the firm's negligence and failure to inform the representative about the assessment order, the appeal was filed late.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned to decide the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘I‘ BENCH

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Kadam
For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Hearing: 13/08/2024Pronounced: 22/08/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 08/05/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A)-58, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2012-13.

2.

In the grounds of appeal

1.

assessee has raised following grounds:- “1.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 1,430 days in filing the appeal thereby denying the justice without appreciating the fact that the appellant was residing in United Cyrus Shroff, United Kingdom Kingdom and had appointed a Representative assessee in India who had filed his affidavit providing the sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. The CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that refusing to condone delay has resulted in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the every threshold and cause of justice being defeated. 1.2 We further submit that where the appellant had acted diligently in safeguarding his legal rights and availing remedies available to him, and had acted on basis of advice and assistance from his legal counsels and since there was no culpable negligence or mala fide on appellant's part in delayed filing of appeal, delay in filing appeal be condoned

21. The assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs 1,63,55,827/- under the head Capital Gains by denying the deduction u/s 54 of the Income tax Act and CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection of the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 54 on the ground that the relief under section 54 will be available to the appellant only if the residential house is purchased in India. 2.3 Without prejudice to above, it is further submitted that section 54 has been amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 so as to provide that the relief under section 54 will be available to the assessee only if the residential house is purchased in India. However, it is stated that this amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years. Thus the denial of the exemption u/s 54 to the appellant would mean applying this amendment retrospectively to the appellant which is unjust and invalid in law”.

1. 3. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal on the ground that there was a delay in filing of appeal of 1430 days.

4. Before us it has been stated that assessee is a non- resident Indian, a citizen of United Kingdom and has been living in UK since 1908s. Since assessee has inherited ancestral property in India which was sold and has claimed Cyrus Shroff, United Kingdom reduction u/s.54, assessment was made by the ld. AO denying the claim of deduction and for that reason assessee has to file return on 31/08/2012. The assessment order was passed on 27/02/2015, however, assessee was not aware of passing of any assessment order in support of the reason for delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), following the affidavit of the representative of the assessee has been given:-

4.

Looking to the fact that assessee Mr. Cyrus Shroff was resident of United Kingdom and he has appointed Mr. Subodh Mody as representative of assessee and Mr. Subodh Mody appointed Goglani & Associates, Chartered Accountants to represent the case. But he did not inform nor received the Cyrus Shroff, United Kingdom assessment order. Thus, under these facts it can be held that there was a bonafide and genuine reason for filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we are remitting this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) after condoning the delay to decide the appeal on merits.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 22nd August, 2024.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →