PADMA SINHA,RANCHI V. ITO WARD-2(1), RANCHI

ITA 155/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Padma Sinha, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal contested an addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act concerning an immovable property purchased jointly with her husband, Shri Bhupendra Prasad. The primary contention was that the provision under which the addition was made came into effect after the purchase was completed. The CIT(A) had earlier dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which the Tribunal found to be unjustly rejected, given the circumstances presented by the assessee regarding her husband's health issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107967 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Meal Ram & Sons V. Commissioner of Income-tax, State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others, N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRANOB KR. KOLEY
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Right to appeal
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर\\ Ȣ ȣ \\ͬ , राँचीÛ ȡ Ȣ , राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.155/RAN/2024 (Ǔ ȡ[ [ / Assessment Year :2013-14) Smt.Padma Sinha Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Ranchi è ȡ Ȣ लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : BAMPS1672P (\\ Ȣ ȡ ȸ /Appellant) : (Ĥ× ȸ / Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aditya Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Pranob Kr. Koley, Sr. DR सुनवाई ȧ ȡ ȣ / Date of Hearing : 27/09/2024 घोषणा ȧ ȡ ȣ /Date of Pronouncement : 30 /09/2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar, AM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 05.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\") for Assessment Year 2013- 14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The assessee has contested the addition made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act made by the ld. Assessing Officer with regard to an immovable property purchased by the assessee in joint name with her husband Shri Bhupendra Prasad. It is pleaded that the addition made is illegal since the said amended provisions came into statute vide Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. ITA No.155/Ran/2024 Padma Sinha, A.Y. 2013-14 2 01.04.2014 whereas the assessee jointly with her husband entered into sale deed on 27.09.2012 when the said provision was not enacted and, therefore, the impugned addition is liable to be set aside. The assessee in ground no. 8 has specifically stated that the Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal without condoning the delay and without giving proper opportunity of hearing. 3. In the instant case, assessment order u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022 by making addition of ₹9,59,250/-. The addition was made on account of difference in the registered purchase price of an immovable property which was below the stamp duty value. Accordingly, the ld.AO added the difference and taxed it as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was belated. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this delay in para 3.3 to 6.2 of the order.In this case, the appeal was filed on 26.08.2022 with reference to the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 i.e. after 149 days from the date of passing of assessment order, therefore, there was delay of 119 days in filing of the appeal. Before him, the assessee pleaded for condonation of the delay mainly on the ground that her husband Shri Bhupendra Prasad was suffering from various post covid ailments as well as having vision problems and was recently operated. The assessee was the only person to take care of her ailing husband. Due to medical issues and ITA No.155/Ran/2024 Padma Sinha, A.Y. 2013-14 3 inabilities the assessee could not arrange necessary documents and for legal advice as a result of which the appeal could not be filed on time. The ld. CIT(A) has deliberated on this aspect of delay and has finally concluded that the delay could not be condoned as the assessee could not show any cogent reason for belated filing of appeal. It was noted by him that the reasons submitted were very vague. According to him, the assessee cannot sleep over the filing of appeal within the statutory time limit and did not take any pain to file the appeal for more than 149 days after passing of the assessment order. In support of the conclusion drawn he has relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. Further, on account of rejection of condonation petition the appeal has been dismissed without examining merits of the case. 5. During the hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has contested the action of the ld.CIT(A).It has also been pointed out that in this case, protective assessment was made by the AO while substantive addition was made in the hands of her husband. It is also intimated that the ld.CIT(A) in that case, vide order dated 19.11.2022 for same assessment year has entertained the appeal which was filed belatedly on the same grounds. He duly considered the condonation application of the assessee and condoned the delay of 122 days. Moreover, even on merits the addition was deleted. Per contra, the ld. Sr.DR. has relied on the orders of lower authorities. ITA No.155/Ran/2024 Padma Sinha, A.Y. 2013-14 4 5.1 We have heard the learned representatives of the parties, perused the record and gone through the decisions cited. It is a settled proposition of law that a right of appeal is a statutory one. The construction which deprives the parties of valuable rights should be avoided. The hon’ble Supreme court in case of Meal Ram & Sons V. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1956] 29 ITR 607(SC) held that a right of appeal is a substantive right and is a creature of the statute. 5.2 Courts have consistently held in the case of condonation of delay in filing appeal, where there is sufficient cause shown and the application for condonation of delay has been moved bona fide, the court would normally condone the delay but where the delay has not been explained at all and, in fact, there is unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. Where the parties chose to sleep over their rights for prolonged periods without any just cause, can hardly claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The provision of limitation should be construed strictly but at best its application could be liberalized where actual sufficient cause in its true sense is shown by an applicant who has acted bona fide and with due care and caution. As already noticed, the law of limitation is based on public policy and helps effective and proper administration of justice. It also be ITA No.155/Ran/2024 Padma Sinha, A.Y. 2013-14 5 noticed that in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, the hon’ble Supreme Court held that expression \"sufficient cause\" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the purpose of justice particularly when there is no motive behind delay. This necessarily implies that parties must act bonafidely, expeditiously and with due care. A casual or a negligent litigant who has acted with utter irresponsible attitude, cannot claim the condonation of delay in law when the right has accrued to the other side. The expression \"sufficient cause\" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC).Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 held as rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory ITA No.155/Ran/2024 Padma Sinha, A.Y. 2013-14 6 tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. 5.3 It is relevant to mention here that in case of husband of the assessee, on this same issue, the ld.CIT(A) not only condoned the delay appreciating merits in the petition but also deleted similar addition. 5.4 In the light of the above discussion and considering a justice oriented approach, we find that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee who ought to have condoned the delay. Keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) who is directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Partha Sarathi Chaudhury) (Prabhash Shankar) Judicial Member Accountant Member राँचीRanchi; Ǒ ȡȲ Dated 30 /09/2024 Jd, Sr.P.S.(on tour) ITA No.155/Ran/2024 Padma Sinha, A.Y. 2013-14 7 आदेश ȧ ĤǓ ͧ ͪ \\Ēȯͪ /Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) On tour, ITAT, Ranchi 1. \\ Ȣ ȡ ȸ / The Appellant- Smt. Padma Sinha, Flat No. 4C, Block-A, Vrindavan Vatika, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834008. 2. Ĥ× ȸ / The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(1), Ranchi 3. आयकरçĒIJƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. आयकर] ǕÈ / Pr. CIT ,Ranchi 5. िवभागीयŮĮćĮċĮĊ, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, राँची/ DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. ȡ [ फाईल/ Guard file. × ȡͪ ĤǓ //True Copy// "