THOTLA SWAMI,MOTHKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.09.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi, relating to A.Y.2016-17.

There is a delay of 300 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the same submitted that the learned CIT (A) NFAC has passed the order on 28.09.2022 but the Advocate who was engaged to appear before the learned CIT (A) NFAC, did not inform the ITA 459 of 2023 Thotla Swami assessee regarding the outcome of the appeal. He submitted that only when the Department started proceedings for collection of taxes that the assessee came to know that in Form No.35 filed before the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the mail id of the Advocate was given and that he did not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) NFAC. He had also not informed the assessee regarding the order passed by the learned CIT (A) NFAC. He submitted that after the recovery proceedings initiated by the Department, the assessee approached another Tax Consultant and got the appeal filed before the Tribunal on 23.9.2023 causing a delay of 300 days. Referring to various decisions, he submitted that since the delay in filing of this appeal is not deliberate, the delay should be condoned.

The learned DR, on the other hand, opposed the arguments advanced by the assessee and submitted that the reasons for such delay is not properly explained by the assessee and therefore, the reasons given by assessee regarding the delay should be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & others reported in 1987 AIR 1353 that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It has further been held that ITA 459 of 2023 Thotla Swami refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merit after hearing the parties. Respectfully following the above decision, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT(A)NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.96,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “income from other sources”.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 17.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,78,460/-. On the basis of information obtained from the DIT (Intelligence) the case of the assessee was reopened by recording reasons. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 8.10.2018. However, the assessee neither filed any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 nor filed any reply to the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act.

During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has purchased

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seller had sold the property in question to many other persons even before executing the sale deed in favour of the assessee and the title of the assessee is still in dispute. Hence the assessee’s claim of non-payment of consideration cannot be brushed aside. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one opportunity to substantiate his case by producing the requisite details before any of the lower authorities.

The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly objected to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Referring to the assessment order as well as the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, he submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee never bothered to file the return of income or furnish the requisite details substantiating the nature and source of the cash payment for the sale of the impugned property. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs.96,80,000/- to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has purchased agricultural land of 4acres and16 guntas in Survey No.249 part situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar for a consideration of Rs.96,80,000/- vide document No.4441/2015 dated 13.08.2015 by paying cash. However, the assessee in response to the statutory notices did not appear before him to explain the source of such investment. We find due to non-appearance of the assessee before the learned CIT (A) NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the seller had sold the property in question, to many other persons even before

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