AMITA SINGH,LUCKNOW V. ITO RANGE-6(1), LUCKNOW

ITA 441/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amita Singh, the appellant, who contested an appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.1,30,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gains from the sale of immovable property, which the assessee argued included costs that should have been deducted. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, not considering the medical and family disturbance reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and admitted the appeal, as the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the ex-parte assessment order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, as the compliance dates were unreasonably short.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 43571 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR RAJWANSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Cost of acquisition; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amita Singh, 538Gha/55, Rajbhawan, Sitapur Road, Lucknow. PAN:AMTPS4417N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-6(1), Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 has been filed by assessee pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065035491(1) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) In this case assessment order dated 02/03/2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144AB of the I. T. Act (DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050310349(1) whereby the assessee’s total Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT (D.R.) I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 income was determined at Rs.1,30,00,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- was made towards Long Term Capital Gains. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order dated 21/05/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065035491(1), the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay on medical grounds and grounds of disturbance in the family as a result of death. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay of 177 days in filing of appeal without considering that there was a Reasonable Cause for delay in filing of appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in not considering that reasons for delay were explained in the course of Appellate Proceeding on 15.09.2023. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO ABOVE 3. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in treating the entire Sale Consideration of Rs.1,30,00,000/- from Sale of Immoveable Property as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing the benefit of Purchase Cost as Cost of Acquisition and Cost of Improvements. I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 4. That the Authorities below erred in not considering that the entire Sale Consideration cannot be treated as Long Term Capital Gain and the cost of Acquisition and cost of Improvement ought to have been allowed from the Sale Consideration. 5. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.1,30,000/- deducted on Sale of Immoveable Property which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. 6. The present additions made are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by authorities below.” (c) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard learned Departmental Representative. (D) On perusal of records, we find that the assessee had provided medical papers and death certificates of family members to the learned CIT(A) in support of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that there was unrest in the family as a result of death of assessee’s father-in-law and brother-in-law. It was further pleaded by the assessee that she was also suffering from severe disease. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal. Further on perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order without providing I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 4 reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This conclusion is reached because the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient time for compliance of the notices. In all the notices, issued by the Assessing Officer, the compliance date prescribed by the Assessing Officer was a very short period after the date of issue. (D.1) In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 21/05/2024 of the learned CIT(A) and we restore the dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned D.R. expressed no objection to this at the time of hearing. (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:06/02/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar "