Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Chinnanna Bobbili, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizambad, ... on 17 June, 2021
ITA No 772 of 2020 Chinnanna Bobbili Hyderabad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad SMC Bench, Hyderabad
(Through Video Conferencing)
Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member
ITA No.772/Hyd/2020
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Sri Chinnanna Bobbili Vs. Income Tax Officer
Hyderabad Ward 2
PAN:BIYPB7062G Nizamabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu
Revenue by: Sri N. Srikanth, DR
Date of hearing: 09/06/2021
Date of pronouncement: 17/06/2021
ORDER
This is assessee's appeal for the A.Y 2014-15 against the order of the CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad, dated 23.09.2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Revenue received information that the assessee individual, has purchased an open land in Survey No.1072 & 1073, Shivar, Nizamabad to the extent of 30 guntas in the financial year 2013-14 for a consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- as against the market value of Rs.54,45,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act are applicable to this case and that the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration is taxable under the head "Income from other sources" in the hands of the purchaser i.e. the assessee herein. He also observed that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 and therefore, believing that there is an escapement of income, the Assessing Officer Page 1 of 5 ITA No 772 of 2020 Chinnanna Bobbili Hyderabad initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
3. In response thereto, the assessee filed a letter dated 11.9.2017 stating that the return of income filed on 25.01.2016 be treated as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter, asked the assessee to file the details which were filed by the assessee.
4. After perusal of the details filed by the assessee and hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not shown the difference between the sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- and the market value of Rs.54,45,000/- as "income from other sources" in his return of income. Therefore, he brought it to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. He further also disallowed an amount of Rs.73,230/- being the claim of deduction under Chapter VI of the Act since the assessee did not file the proof thereof.
5. Against this order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal in limini on account of delay and also for non-appearance of the assessee. There was a delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal and the CIT (A) was not satisfied with the reasons given for the delay. Against this order of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal.
"1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal in limini on account of delay in filing appeal and observing that it is also liable for dismissal on non-prosecution and merits is erroneous in law and against the principles of equity and natural justice.Page 2 of 5
ITA No 772 of 2020 Chinnanna Bobbili Hyderabad
2. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him uls 249(3) by 133 days as the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal as the delay is purely due to technical reasons and assessee was in genuine belief that appeal was filed in time and filing fee was also paid in time on 19.01.2018 and such delay ought to have been condoned to meet the ends of justice as held in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v MST. Katiji & Others [1987J 167 ITR 471 (SC).
3. Subject to above, on merits the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating in proper perspective the fact that appellant has entered into an agreement for sale on 15/03/2013 and has paid the sale consideration over the period of March and April, 2013, the sale deed was registered on 05/08/2013. The amendment in Section 56(2)(vii)(b) by introduction of sub clause (ii) w.e.f AY 2014- 15 and the provisions of the act existing as on the date of agreement needs to be applied and the action of AO in applying the provisions retrospectively is bad in law and as such the very order is void ab-intio as held in [2020] 429 ITR 97 (Mad) CIT vs Vummudi Amarendran and [2020] 207 TT J (Visakha) 239 Asst. CIT vs Anala Anjibabu.
4. Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciated that as there is no escapement of taxable income as envisaged under the provisions of section 147 of the act and therefore issuance of notice uls 148 without recording proper reasons for justifying the re-opening is bad in law and the very order is invalid.
5. Subject to Ground No. 3, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that reference to valuation officer though introduced subsequently by the Finance Act, 2014 is a procedural provision and AO was required to refer the matter to valuation officer, failure to do so has resulted in vitiating the order.
6. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays the Honorable Tribunal to kindly delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A)".
6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has entered into an agreement of sale on 15.5.2018 for purchase of property for a consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- and has also paid part of the consideration of Rs.15.00 lakhs in March, 2013 and the balance was paid in the months of April & Page 3 of 5 ITA No 772 of 2020 Chinnanna Bobbili Hyderabad August, 2013. He submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were effective from 1.4.2014 and therefore, the sale consideration which was fixed prior to such date has to be taken into consideration and in such circumstances, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) would not get attracted. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vummudi Amarendran reported in (2020)429 ITR 97 (Mad.) and the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Anala Anjibabu rendered by ITAT Visakhapatnam in ITA No.415/Viz/2019 dated 17.8.2020 reported in (2020) 270 TTJ (Visakha)239. The assessee has also filed additional evidence being the copies of the agreement of sale and the sale deed in support of his contention. The learned Counsel for the assessee thus prayed for relief accordingly.
7. The learned DR, however, supported the orders of the CIT (A).
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the CIT (A) has not disposed of the assessee's appeal on merits but has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 133 days. I find that the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay as the illness of his old aged father (80 years) who ultimately died on 23.9.2020. I find that the assessee had not given these details in the affidavit filed before the CIT (A) for condonation of delay. Further, the additional evidence filed by the assessee such as the Agreement of Sale etc., also needs to be verified. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to the assessee to file proper affidavit explaining Page 4 of 5 ITA No 772 of 2020 Chinnanna Bobbili Hyderabad the reasons for the delay and also direct the CIT (A) to consider the evidence filed by the assessee and re-adjudicate the issues on merits as well, if he is inclined to condone the delay.
9. In the result, assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th June, 2021.
Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 17th June, 2021.
Vinodan/sps Copy to:
S.No Addresses 1 Sri Chinnanna Bobbili C/o M/s.Anjaneyulu & Co. C.A, 30
Bhagyalakshmi Nagar, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad 500080 2 Income Tax Officer Ward -2 Nizamabad 3 CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT - 5, Hyderabad 5 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 6 Guard File By Order Page 5 of 5