Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Rajesh ,Noida vs Ito Ward-5(3)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar on 25 July, 2025

                                                   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.102/Del/2025
               Assessment Year: 2013-14

Rajesh               Vs. ITO
H. No. 50, Sultanpur     Ward- 5 (3) (1)
Sector-128, Noida        Gautam Budh Nagar
PAN :BNEPR3429L
       (Appellant)                 (Respondent)


         Assessee by           None
         Revenue by            Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.
                               DR



             Date of hearing     21.07.2025
             Date of             25.07.2025
             pronouncement
                               ORDER

PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 13.09.2024passed by theNational Faceless Appeal Centre (herein after referred {NFAC}pertaining to assessment order dated ITA No.103/Del/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 2 30.03.2022for Assessment year 2013-14 under Sections 147 rw.s. 144 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 147 read with Section 144 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 no merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act. ITA No.103/Del/2025

A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 3

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 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 assessee is a resident individual engaged in agricultural activities and also a handicapped person. The assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee under the provision of Section 147 and Section 144 of the Income Tax, Act 1961 on the basis that the assessee had allegedly sold an immovable property for Rs.35,00,000 during the relevant financial year. The initiation of proceedings was grounded solely on the premises that the sale consideration declared by the assessee was substantially lower than the circle rate of Rs.82,61,000/- applicable to the property in question. It is pertinent to note that the determination of the fair market value of the property, as per circle rate, was utilized by AO. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:

A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 4

5.1. The assessee is on the appeal before this office against the order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax, Act.

5.2 The assessee was provided multiple opportunities by this office to submit documents and make submissions in response to the appeal filed. However, the assessee has not exercised this option despite multiple reminder. The table below indicates the dates and the compliances status of the various notices issued.

5. The Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Ld. NFAC the assessee did not file his submissions before the authority, for which the appeal was dismissed in non-compliance by the NFAC.

7. Since in the instant case the Ld. NFAC has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantive its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the proceedings before Ld. NFAC. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 5

8. In the result, the appeal of 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