BHANU PRATAP,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY

2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 20/12/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/105816437(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 24 days. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on medical ground, supported by medical certificate; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(C) The assessment order in this case was passed on 26/12/2018 u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) ex-parte qua the assessee by making addition of Rs.4,27,460/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/105816437(1) dated 20/12/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 20/12/2023 passed by the learned CIT(A).

(D) At the time of hearing, there was no representative from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we have heard learned Sr. Departmental Representative. He relied on the orders dated 26/12/2018 and dated 20/12/2023 passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) respectively.

(D.1) The first ground of appeal is regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act. The second ground of appeal is regarding validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reasons recorded suffered from infirmities and the belief of the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The aforesaid two issues have been dealt with by the learned CIT(A) in detail in his impugned appellate order dated 22/12/2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 22/12/2023 of learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

(D.2) Materials on record have been perused. No submissions (written or oral) have been made from the assessee’s side during appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No materials have been brought for the consideration of the Bench requiring any interference with the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has passed a detailed and well reasoned order in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the absence of any material to warrant interference with the impugned order of learned CIT(A), the order of the learned CIT(A) on aforesaid issues is upheld. Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal are dismissed.

(D.3) Ground No. 3 of the appeal is regarding giving credit for cost of purchase of property while determining income from sale of property. On perusal of the assessment order it is found that the Assessing Officer has taxed the entire sale consideration amounting to Rs.4,27,455/- as income of the assessee without deducting (indexed) cost of acquisition and/or cost of improvement. This act of the Assessing Officer is inconsistent with provisions of Income Tax Act regarding computation of capital gain. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute income under the head capital gains in accordance with law by deducting (indexed) cost of acquisition and/or cost of improvement from the sale consideration of the property for the purpose of determining income under the head capital gain. For this limited purpose, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly ground of appeal is partly allowed.

(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/11/2024)