Ram Prakash, Raja Ka Tal V. CIT Appeal, Agra

ITA 51/AGR/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7192 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSH SIDDHARTH GAUTUM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI P.C. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 51/Agr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 SA 02/Agr/2023 Ram Prakash, Raja Ka Tal, Firozabad. PAN : CSAPR9434B versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Firozabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Harsh Siddharth Gautum, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 13.05.2024 Date of pronouncement: 16.05.2024 ORDER PER P.C. YADAV, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is arising from the order dated 25.05.2021 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee did not file any return of income whereas the assessee sold a joint immovable property on 29.07.2011 for ITA No. 51/Agr/2023 2 Rs.52,63,000/- against its circle value of Rs.53,05,000/- as per Stamp Valuation Authority, jointly with his brother having 50% share and that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.35,00,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer found that property was sold for Rs.52,63,000/- and the share of assessee was of Rs.26,31,500/-, out of which he received a sum of Rs.16,31,500/- by way of cheque and Rs.10,00,000/- as cash. The Assessing Officer therefore, concluded that out of cash of Rs.35,00,000/- deposited in the bank account, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- remained unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also worked out the long term capital gain of assessee at Rs.21,35,554/- as taxable in the hands of the assessee, as the subjected land sold was situated within 8 Kms from the Municipal limits of Firozabad. 3. The assessee challenged the order of Assessing Officer in appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), which was filed delayed by 44 days. Assessee filed application for condonation of delay on the ground that due to his ailment, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation, but the said application of assessee stood rejected by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the premise that no medical documents and ITA No. 51/Agr/2023 3 affidavit etc. has been filed by the assessee in support of his averments. Accordingly, ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as barred by limitation without considering the delay of 44 days. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. The present appeal before us too is filed beyond the period of limitation. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating that the impugned order of ld. CIT(Appeals) was passed ex parte and the same was never served upon the assessee by resorting to any mode of service. The assessee first came to know of passing the impugned ex parte order when penalty order was served on 13.03.2023 as per text of the penalty order. Then the assessee applied for certified copy of the impugned order which was received on 17.03.2023 and the assessee filed present appeal on 05.04.2023 and therefore, the delay occurred in filing the present appeal has to be condoned. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the ld. Sr. DR. The assessee in support of its application for condonation of delay has filed an affidavit deposing therein the contents of ITA No. 51/Agr/2023 4 condonation application. The affidavit filed by assessee stands un- rebutted on behalf of the Department and hence, contents of affidavit are to be treated as true. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is sufficient cause, namely, the assessee received the order of CIT(Appeals) on 17.03.2023, which prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Accordingly, the delay occurred in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has decided the appeal of the assessee ex parte qua assessee and dismissed the same as barred by limitation on the ground that no medical documents and affidavit were filed in support. It is the contention of the assessee in the grounds of appeal raised before us that all relevant papers were filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice and fairness to both the parties, we direct the CIT(Appeals) to condone the delay of 44 days and admit the appeal of assessee for hearing on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We order accordingly. Since we have decided the appeal of the assessee ITA No. 51/Agr/2023 5 in ITA No. 51/Agr/2023, the stay application filed by the assessee numbering 02/Agr/2023 becomes infructuous. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (P.C. YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16.05.2024 *aks/-