JIJO ROBERT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

ITITA 3/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jijo Robert, a Non-Resident Indian, who appealed against the final assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle Intl. Txn, Trivandrum, for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessment order included an addition of Rs. 78,39,710 to the capital gains on the sale of property, rejecting the indexed cost of acquisition. Jijo Robert's objections to the Draft Assessment Order were dismissed by the DRP as being barred by limitation, which he contested. The Tribunal found merit in his argument, referencing a decision by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, and thus set aside the DRP's findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708598 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Jhabboo Lal Kesara Rolling Mills vs. Union of India and Ors, 1985(19) ELT 367 (All.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VENI RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: R. KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No.IT(IT)A: 3/Coch/2025 Jijo Robert vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SONJOY SARMA, JM IT(IT)A No.03/Coch/2025 Assessment Year:2022-23 Jijo Robert .......... Appellant 3/36, Creyke Road, Ilam, Christchurch, New Zealand. PAN: BECPR2795Q vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle – Int. Txn, Trivandrum, Kerala. Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle Intl. Txn, Trivandrum (hereinafter referred 2 ITA No.IT(IT)A: 3/Coch/2025 Jijo Robert vs. DCIT to as “AO”) U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 27/01/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The Return of Income for the AY 2022-23 was filed on 24/07/2022. Against the said return of income, the Draft Assessment Order was passed by the AO U/s. 144C(1) of the Act, dated 19/03/2024 proposing to make an addition of Rs. 78,39,710/-, while computing the capital gains on the sale of property situated at Survey No. 2614/1, 2-1, Rsy No-56, Block No.34, Area-7.57 Ares, Vattiyourkavu Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. While doing so, the AO adopted the cost of acquisition as on 01/04/2001 Rs. 12,49,050/-, adopted the cost of improvement of Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the process, the AO rejected the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 1,06,20,293/-. On receipt of the Draft Assessment Order, the appellant filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short “DRP”) through email on 18/04/2024 and the physical copy of the objections were sent through courier on 18/04/2024. However, the DRP rejected the objections of the appellant on the ground that the Draft Assessment Order was served on the assessee on 19/03/2024 whereas the due date for filing of the objections before the DRP U/s. 144C(2) of the Act was 18/04/2024 and therefore, the DRP dismissed the objections of the appellant as barred by limitation in the absence of express power conferred on DRP to condone the delay. 3 ITA No.IT(IT)A: 3/Coch/2025 Jijo Robert vs. DCIT 3. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order on 27/01/2025 U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act and repeated the addition proposed in Draft Assessment Order. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The Learned Authorized Representative (in short “AR”) submits that the objections before the DRP despatched on 18/04/2024 through courier ie., DTDC Express Limited / e-mail. The AR further submits that since the objections are dispatched to the DRP within the period of limitation, then it cannot be said that it is barred by limitation placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhabboo Lal Kesara Rolling Mills vs. Union of India and Ors, 1985(19) ELT 367 (All.). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued in support of their decisions. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhabboo Lal Kesara Rolling Mills vs. Union of India and Ors, 1985(19) ELT 367 (All.) it cannot be said that the filing of the objections before the DRP is barred by limitation and therefore, findings of the DRP are set-aside and remit the matter back to the stage of filing of the objections before the DRP with a 4 ITA No.IT(IT)A: 3/Coch/2025 Jijo Robert vs. DCIT direction to dispose of the objections of the appellant after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 15th July, 2025 okk sps Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "