Sri. G. Rajasekarappa (HUF), Koppal V. Income-Tax Officer, Hospet

ITA 873/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7651 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI JT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.872 & 873/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 SHRI G. RAJASEKARAPPA (HUF), LANDLORD, C/O IOC DEALERS, CBS CIRCLE, GANGAVATHI. DIST. KOPPAL. PAN: AAFHG 8051G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, HOSPET. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JT. CIT(DR)(ITAT) BENGALURU DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2017 O R D E R THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE COMMON GROUNDS. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE GROUNDS IN ITA N O.872/BANG/2017 FOR THE AY 2009-10:- ITA NO.872 & 873/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE DID . 2. LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE COMPUTATION OF LTCG AT RS. 28,90,754/- AS AGAINST D ECLARED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 16,53,120/- IN SPITE OF THE FAC T THAT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN DETAIL WERE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM AS WE LL AS THE AO. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENTS TO BANK UNDER THE PRETEXT THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILD ING CONSTRUCTION. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION AND IMPRO VEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,11,280/ - ON SURMISES AND CONJE CTURES AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E INTEREST LEVIED U/S. 234A, 234B & 234C TOTALLING TO RS. 3,41 ,071/-. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER SUCH GROUNDS THAT MAY BE UR GED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT HAS BEEN BROUGH T TO MY NOTICE THAT THESE APPEALS WERE FILED LATE BY 218 DAYS FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS MOVED WITH THE REQUEST THA T ASSESSEE WAS OF 72 YEARS OLD AND WAS HAVING SOME MEDICAL PROBLEMS ON A CCOUNT OF WHICH THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. THOUGH HE HAS F ILED THE DOCTORS CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD, BUT IN THE CERTIFICATE IT WAS SIMPLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHRONIC DISEASES LIKE BACK PAIN AND CA RDIAC PROBLEMS AND HE HAS UNDERGONE CARDIAC BYPASS SURGERY. ITA NO.872 & 873/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 3. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS CERTIFICATE OF THE DOCTOR IS UNDATED AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED THEREIN AS TO WHEN TH E CARDIAC BYPASS SURGERY TOOK PLACE. IN THE OPEN COURT, A QUERY WAS RAISED ABOUT THE DATE OF BYPASS SURGERY. IT WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS DONE IN 2008. IN THE ABSENCE OF MEDICAL RECORD WITH REGARD TO PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF MEDICAL PROBLEMS, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED. APPEAL AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAY S FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). DELAY IN FIL ING OF APPEAL IS 218 DAYS WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE. BUT IN THIS CASE, EXCEPT MEDICAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, NO SPECIFIC AVERMENTS WERE RAISED AS TO WHY THESE APPEALS COULD NOT BE FI LED IN TIME. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THROUGH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS THAT DELAY OF EACH DAY HAS TO BE EXPLAINED, BUT IN THIS CASE NO EVIDEN CE IS FILED EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. ONLY MEDICAL GROUN D WAS TAKEN, THAT TOO, WITHOUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE AB SENCE OF REASONABLE GROUND, DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONE D. WE ACCORDINGLY, DECLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APP EALS. THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ITA NO.872 & 873/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 4. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEALS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ON ME RIT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.