Prakash Narayan Patidar, Bhopal V. ITO 2(4), Bhopal

ITA 62/Ind/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8549 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No. 62/Ind/2022 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Prakash Narayan Patidar, Misrod, Bhopal बनाम /Vs. CIT(A)-3 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: APRPP7337R Assessee by None Revenue by None Date of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: 1. This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order dated 28.05.2019 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of the order of assessment dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned ITO, 2(4), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment-Year 2007-08. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee. But the Ld. DR was ready and willing to argue the case. Since the matter relates to old assessment-year 2007-08 and the issue is small, it was taken for hearing and proceeded with. Prakash Narayan Patidar ITA No.62/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2007-08 Page 2 of 5 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.05.2019 but however the appeal has been filed on 25.03.2022 which is beyond the prescribed period of 60 days and therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of documents filed with Form No. 36, it is observed that the assessee has filed an application dated 24.03.2022, accompanied by a sworn-affidavit duly notarized, requesting for condonation of delay in which the assessee has averred that he was suffering from prolonged sciatica and therefore had to undergo complete bed rest. The assessee has also stated that he received the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 of Ld. CIT(A) on 11.02.2022. Taking into account these facts, we find a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. We confronted Ld. DR who did not express any objection. Therefore, having regard to the facts averred by the assessee and keeping in view the larger objective to grant substantial justice, the delay is condoned and appeal was preceded for hearing. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That a proper and meaningful opportunity has not been afforded to the assessee to put up his defense in respect of the issues disputed in appeal. 2. That ld. CIT has erred in not conducting proper verification of the facts of the case before completing the assessment and consequently, entire assessment has become arbitrary, hypothetical and unlawful. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, following additions made by the Ld. CIT are arbitrary, contrary to facts on record and therefore unlawful. A. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gains on 0.77 Acres - Rs.9,78,024/- B. Additions on account of Long Term Capital Gains on 0.94 Acres - Rs.4,74,926/- 1.71 Acre - Rs.14,52,950/- 6. Rebate of Cost of Acquisition of Rs.15,400/- for 0.77 Acres and Rs.18,800/- for 0.94 Acres accorded by the Ld. CIT is arbitrary, erroneous and without obtaining a valuation report for FMV as on 01.04.1981. Prakash Narayan Patidar ITA No.62/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2007-08 Page 3 of 5 7. The ld. CIT has erred in computing long term capital gain in the hands of appellant in respect of 0.52 acres of land bearing Khasra No.18/110/2/2 situated at Village Misrod which is not factual owned by the appellant. 8. That the ld. CIT has in considering the sale of land made by Shri Avtar Singh to Smt. Nalini Khare and Mrs. Farida Saify in A.Y.2007-08 in the hands of appellant. Factually appellant had sold above pieces of land to Shri Avta Singh by a registered power of attorney during A.Y.2006-07 itself and in the A.Y.2007- 08 Shri Avtar Singh sold above pieces of land to others with which assessee is not concerned. 9. The Ld. CIT has erred in not summoning Shri Avtar Singh u/s 131 and allowing opportunity to the appellant to cross examine him which is against the principles of natural justice. 10. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271(1)(b) are arbitrary & unlawful.” [Grounds as serially numbered by appellant have been reproduced without any modification] 5. On perusal of Grounds, we observe that the assessee has raised significant issues. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has submitted that a proper and meaningful opportunity was not given to him before completing assessment. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has submitted that proper verification of facts has not been done before completing assessment. In Ground No. 6, the assessee has claimed that the revenue has taken Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 without obtaining valuation report as on 01.04.1981. In Ground No. 7 and 8, the assessee has claimed that the capital gain was not liable to be assessed for the reason that the impugned assets were either not owned by the assessee or not sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment-year 2007-08 under consideration. 6. On perusal of the assessment-order, we observe that although there were non-compliances of the notices on the part of assessee, the assessment had to be framed in absence of representation from assessee. The relevant para of assessment-order is reproduced below: Prakash Narayan Patidar ITA No.62/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2007-08 Page 4 of 5 “6. In response to notice u/s 142(1) issue from time to time, none attended but Shri M.K. Khare, CA attended for the first time on 02.03.2015 representing Shri Laxminarayan Patidar, brother of the assessee and stated that the assessee did not receive any notice in this regard. He therefore, made submissions in the case of Shri Laxminarayan Patidar who was the joint owner of property with the assessee and therefore, I take the facts of the case as one and the same for the assessee as well.” 7. Thus, we observe that the issues raised by assessee are very significant which involve a thorough verification of facts and figure without which it is not possible to compute correct taxable income of assessee. We, therefore, find it judicious and fair to refer this case back to Ld. AO. The Ld. AO shall provide an opportunity to the assessee, consider the details and documents as may be submitted by assessee and thereafter make a proper assessment in accordance with law. Accordingly, we remand this case back to Ld. AO. 8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on 10.08.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore दनांक /Dated : 10.08.2022 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Benches, Indore Prakash Narayan Patidar ITA No.62/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2007-08 Page 5 of 5 1. Date of taking dictation 3.8.22 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 4.8.22 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 8. Date of dispatch of the Order