RAJESH,NOIDA V. ITO WARD-5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

ITA 103/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh, the appellant, who challenged the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The penalty was based on the non-disclosure of income from the sale of immovable property, which was significantly lower than the circle rate. The ITO initiated proceedings under Section 148, suspecting underreporting of income. Rajesh argued that the initiation was based on erroneous facts and lacked proper application of mind. He also contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider crucial evidence, including a valuation report under Section 50C, which was mistakenly submitted in a different appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the NFAC but had previously filed an appeal against the quantum which was allowed, leading to the restoration of the case to the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the penalty appeal for statistical purposes, aligning with the decision on the quantum appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711581 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Procedural lapse
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 271(1)(c); 50C

Judgement Text

"ITA No.103/Del/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “A”:NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.103/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajesh H. No. 50, Sultanpur Sector-128, Noida Vs. ITO Ward- 5 (3) (1) Gautam Budh Nagar PAN :BNEPR3429L (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 20.09.2024passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (herein after referred {NFAC}pertaining to assessment order dated Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.103/Del/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 2 14.09.2022for Assessment year 2013-14 under Sections 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”). 2. The assessee has raised the flowing grounds in appeal: 1. That the assessment order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was bad in law. 2. Initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was completely on erroneous facts, without application of mind, so the same should be decided as void ab initio. 3. That the failure to invoke the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act for determining the accurate market value of the property was a serious procedural lapse, rendering the assessment order flawed and unjustifiable. 4. That the appellant had already filed reports from Registered Valuer under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, but due to a filing error, these documents were mistakenly submitted in the penalty order appeal rather than in the quantum appeal. Despite being filed, the CIT(A) did not consider these reports in the penalty appeal, which further prejudiced the appellant’s case. 5. That the first appellate authority also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence as filed before the same. Thus, the impugned order has not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act. 6. If, necessary additional/ revised/ modified grounds of Appeal shall be filed at the time of hearing of the instant Appeal. 3. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay for 37 days. In the application the assessee has stated that due to illness he has not filed the appeal within prescribed time Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.103/Del/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 3 limit. The assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time limit. Therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. In this case information received from Investigation Wing, Unit-2 Noida that the assessee had sold an immovable property amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- during F.Y.2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. The circle rate of the property was Rs.82,61,000. On perusal of the data available on system, it was found that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2013-14. 5. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act, and accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the Act, was issued on 31.03.2021 after recording the satisfaction of Ld. PCIT, Noida. A notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 12.11.2021. However, no compliance to notice u/s. 142 (1) of the Act dated 12.11.2021 was made by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.103/Del/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 4 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC after filing the above captioned appeal. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee against the quantum was allowed for statistical purposes and restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide a fresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order is also allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25 July,2025. Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "