SINGULURI SAI VENKATA NAGAR SRIVANI,WEST GODAVARI vs. ITO, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM

1. in dated 30.10.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 with the delay of 824 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, sold an immovable property of land admeasuring 629.2 sq.yds for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and made investment in purchase of agricultural land. However, the fair market value of the property as per SRO was Rs.25,17,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a letter to the assessee, requesting to furnish the particulars of taxability of capital gains and also payment of taxes thereon. As there was no response, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) was issued on 06.03.2014 and a letter was issued on 09.05.2014, requesting the assessee to furnish her return of income. In response to which, the assessee had filed her return of income electronically on 31.07.2014, admitting total taxable income at Rs.2,68,340/-. Later on notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for certain information. The AO observed from the computation statement furnished by the assessee that the assessee had wrongly taken the sale consideration value at Rs.15,00,000/- and arrived at Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) at Rs.2,68,342/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.2,64,658/- and exemption u/s 54B of Rs.9,67,000/- for investment made in purchase of agricultural land. When the Ld.AR was asked why the full value of sale consideration was taken at Rs.15,00,000/- instead of the correct adoptable value of Rs.25,17,000/-, the Ld.AR submitted that as per the rules of Registration Authority, if the value of any land in municipal limits is less than 0.20 cents, the extent has to be valued in square yards instead of acres. Hence, the registrar adopted the value of the land in sq.yards instead of agricultural land of acres 0.13 cents. Not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the AO revised the LTCG by adopting the SRO value of sale consideration at Rs.25,17,000/- and arrived at the taxable LTCG at Rs.12,85,342/-.

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer was not justified in making the addition without referring the matter to the valuation officer.

Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.

It was the submission of the assessee that the appeal was filed with the delay of 824 days, since the assessee has left for USA on 05.02.2021 and came to India only on 10.04.2022 and during her visit , her Chartered Accountant did not file the appeal. Therefore, there was huge delay in filing the appeal.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that there is no valid proof to establish her date of return to India.

I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and also the photostat copies of Visa filed by the assessee. On perusal of the same, I do not find any stamp on Visa indicating her date of arrival to India i.e. on 10.04.2022 or any valid reason to condone such huge delay of 824 days. Therefore I am not inclined to condone the huge delay of 824 days as I do not find any sufficient reason to condone the delay.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.