MANDLEM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

We have heard the parties and perused record.

I.T.A.No.513/VIZ/2024 Mandlem Rama Rao 3. A perusal of Para 5.3 of the impugned order shows that the appellant had failed to make any submissions and to produce the certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities declaring the Fair Market Value of the property. The Ld.CIT(A) has found that the appellant had failed to substantiate his claim of actual sale consideration or any addition / improvement made in the property. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not utilize the opportunity to put-forth the submission on account of the circumstances beyond his control and that was also the reason for there being a certain amount of delay in filing the appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) has condoned the delay as noticed from Para 5 of the Impugned order.

The Ld.DR in all fairness submitted that the only issue is about the computation of the capital gains under section 48 of the Income Tax Act and therefore unless and until the relevant documents about Fair market Value and about the consideration and about the addition / improvement made in the property are produced the issue could not have been decided.

Considering the overall circumstances, we find that in the interest of justice and a fair disposal of the matter, one opportunity can be granted to the Appellant–Assessee. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for disposal according to law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall cooperate with the Page No. 2

I.T.A.No.513/VIZ/2024 Mandlem Rama Rao Authorities and shall be permitted to produce documents as may be necessary as indicated in Para No. 5.3 of the Ld.CIT(A) order.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.