BOMMAK PREM KUMAR,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 927/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bommak Prem Kumar, a consultant engineer and land developer, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-2014. The primary contention arose from the assessment of long-term capital gains from the sale of plots, where discrepancies were noted between the declared income and the income assessed by the Assessing Officer. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to substantiate his claims with adequate documentary evidence at both the assessment and appellate stages, leading to the dismissal of his appeal on both technical and merit grounds. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was heavily influenced by the assessee's failure to respond adequately to notices and the significant delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474843 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector-(LA)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINATH SADANALA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SANDHYA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.927/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Bommak Prem Kumar Hyderabad. PAN AJSPB0785C vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), HYDERABAD. (Appellants) (Respondent) For Assessee : MS. S. Sandhya, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr AR Date of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 ORDER PER G. MANJUNATHA, A.M. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.11.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2013-2014. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a consultant engineer and also involved in developing of his own land into plots and sells them. During the year under 2 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 consideration, the assessee has filed his return of income declaring income at Rs.18,25,660/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer had issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on 04.09.2014 [which was served upon the assessee on 06.09.2014], 07.05.2015, 08.02.2016 and issued summons on 18.03.2016 u/sec.131 of the Act. In response to the summons issued u/sec.131 of the Act, the assessee appeared on 24.03.2016 and his statement was recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had income from property at Rs.1,80,075 and income from profession at Rs.3,12,000 as returned besides 1/3rd share of long term capital gains. With respect to the long term capital gains, the Assessing Officer noted that during the year, the assessee, along with his two brothers sold plots at Boduppal (v) Ghatkesar (M) of Ramga Reddy District to various parties and declared sale consideration of Rs.3,09,84,000/- and offered long term capital gains of Rs.14,33,587/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called for the details of the sales. The assessee 3 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 through his letter dated 24.03.2016, furnished a list of 105 plots sold for a value of Rs.9,88,78,000/-. On perusal of the list of plots sold by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that there was a difference between the returned income and the furnished figures before him and, therefore, the assessee was asked to explain the said difference. It was the submission of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he is not maintaining any books for these sales and the present particulars were furnished before Assessing Officer after obtaining figures from other brothers and the total consideration on account of sale of plots was Rs.9,88,78,000/- and after reducing the cost of acquisition i.e., Rs.73,76,738/-, the total long term capital gains worked-out at Rs.9,15,01,262/- and 1/3rd share of the assessee is at Rs.3,05,00,837/-. The assessee claimed exemption u/sec.54F at Rs.64,35,500/- in construction of house. The Assessing Officer noted that since the assessee has not invested the total sum in house construction, the proportionate deduction of Rs.59,52,837/- was only allowed and the balance sum of Rs.2,45,47,582/- treated as taxable 4 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 income in the hands of the assessee after denying various expenditures made by the assessee vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 175 days and reiterated his submissions. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has issued various notices dated 27.01.2020, 23.12.2020, 09.10.2023 and 10.11.2023 to the assessee which are delivered to the email address provided by the assessee to the Department. Despite service of the above notices, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any submissions. In absence of any material brought to the notice of the learned CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee not only on technical ground of delay but also on merits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal 5 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 with a delay of 233 days and reiterated his submissions made before the lower authorities. 5. It was the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the assessee could not file the instant appeal before the Tribunal in time because of illness of the assessee as he was suffered with multiple injuries like disc bulge etc. and advised by the Doctor for complete rest. He accordingly pleaded that the delay of 233 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal be condoned in the interest of substantial justice as the assessee has fair chances to succeed in its case. 6. The Learned DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee all along right from the assessment stage did not respond to the notices issued by the Department and negligent in pursuing his case. Despite several opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate his case and this type of 6 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 lackadaisical approach of the assessee should not entertained by the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal should not condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before it and the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable either on facts or on law. He accordingly submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that on perusal of the orders of the lower authorities admittedly the assessee had not shown interest in pursuing his appeal right from the assessment stage and on being called several times by way of the impugned notices, the assessee filed a vague reply during the course of assessment proceedings without sufficient documentary evidences, resulting which, the Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income of long term capital gains of the assessee at Rs.2,49,39,660/- u/sec.54F of the Act. And in appeal before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 175 days. The learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 175 days in absence of not explaining the day-today delay before him. In 7 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 this connection, it is relevant to note here that during the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has issued four notices calling the assessee to explain his case. However, the assessee neither responded to the notices issued nor filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his case before him. Therefore, the learned CIT(A), in absence of any supportive material/documentary evidence brought to his notice, treated the grounds raised by the assessee as not genuine and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee duly relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 125 STC 375 (SC). Thus, the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of assessee on technical grounds as well as on the merits of the case in lieu of negligent attitude of the assessee in pursuing his appeal before him. In appeal before the Tribunal, there was a delay of 233 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal. Even before the Tribunal also the assessee had taken various adjournments. However, the assessee failed demonstrate the day-to-day delay in filing 8 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 the appeal before the Tribunal. Taking into consideration of the negligent attitude of the assessee right from the assessment stage to the appeal instituted before the Tribunal and in light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 vide order dated 08.04.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of sec.3(1) Secs.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and uphold the order of the Hon’ble High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court in dismissing the appeal on account of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP, after considering the various judicial precedents on the subject matter of condonation of delay, noted that where a litigant could not explain the ‘sufficient cause’ which means adequate, enough reasons which prevented him to approach the Court within the period of limitation and could not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained the delay to the Court/Tribunal, 9 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 Court’s has no power to condone such delays. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that the statutory provisions under Limitation Act may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same by quoting the legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law\", stands attracted when there were negligence/failure to exercise due diligence etc., and accordingly dismissed the SLP of the appellants in the aforesaid case. By respectfully following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) (supra), we are disinclined to condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. 10 ITA.No.927/Hyd./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [LALIET KUMAR] [G.MANJUNATHA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Date 24th February, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Shri Bommak Prem Kumar, 1-89/1A Rajalingam Residency, Habsiguda, Hyderabad 500007 2. Income Tax Officer Ward 15-2, Hyderabad 3. Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4. The DR ITAT ‘A” Bench, Hyderabad 5. Guard File //By Order// //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary : ITAT : Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad. "