SOUNDARARAJAN NAGARAJ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,MADURAI-1, MADURAI

From the impugned order, it could be seen that an assessment was framed against assessee u/s 143(3) on 31-12-2019. However, the revisional authority, upon perusal of case records, held that the Ld.AO failed to notice difference between stamp duty value and actual value of sale consideration of the property in terms of provisions of Section 50C of the Act. The said aspects were not examined by Ld. AO and assessment was completed without proper enquiries and with non- application of mind. Though the assessee assailed revisional jurisdiction, Ld. Pr CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiries with regard to points as flagged in the revisionary order. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred further appeal before us.

Upon perusal of case records, we find that the registry has noted a considerable delay of 319 days in filing of appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of an affidavit of the assessee which is dated 13-04-2023. In para-6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated by assessee that the assessee intended to file said appeal before the Tribunal and conveyed the same to Shri Nagaraj (stated to be an Income Tax Petitioner) at Dindigul. It has further been stated that on the assurance given by Shri Nagaraj, the assessee was under impression that the appeal had already been filed. However, only a few days back, the assessee realized that Shri Nagaraj did not file the appeal owing to unknown reasons. The assessee immediately took steps and contacted another representative who preferred the further appeal before Tribunal. In support, an affidavit has also been filed from Shri M. Nagarajan which is dated 22-11-2023. In para-4 of the affidavit, it has been stated as under: -

The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand opposed condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT-DR placed on record consequential assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 19-09-2023. The Ld. CIT-DR drew attention to the fact that various show causes notices were issued to the assessee starting from 07-10-2022 onwards which has been tabulated in para-2 of the assessment order. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that the assessee was well aware of the consequential assessment proceedings and it is hard to believe that the assessee was not aware that the revisional order was not challenged before Tribunal. Having heard both sides, the issue of condonation of delay is adjudicated as under.

Upon perusal of Para-2 of assessment order dated 19-09-2023, it could be seen that the various notices / intimations were issued to assessee by Ld. AO from time to time starting from 07-10-2022 onwards. The assessee sought adjournment on 08-02-2023 and the assessee filed part submissions on 14-02-2023. The present appeal has been filed before us on 13-04-2023. Therefore, the reason adduced by the assessee seeking condonation of delay could not be accepted. The assessee was well aware of the ongoing assessment proceedings and it could not be said that he was not aware about the fact that no appeal was preferred against the revisional order. The assessee, in our opinion, took a conscious decision not to prefer appeal against revisional order. This being the case, we decline to condone the delay and accordingly, dismiss the appeal as ‘not admitted’. 6. The appeal stand dismissed as not admitted. Order pronounced in open court on 6th February, 2024.