Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 2805
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HYDERABAD BENCH)
SHRI LALIET KUMAR, SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, JJ
BOMMAK PREM KUMAR HYDERABAD – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-15(2) HYDERABAD – Respondent
ITA 927/HYD/2024
MS. S. Sandhya, Advocate; Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr AR
Delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; negligence in pursuing the case led to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(2), 142(1), and 54F - Appeal against order of CIT(A) dismissed due to delay and lack of response from the assessee - Assessee failed to substantiate claims of long-term capital gains and exemption - Appeal was filed late by 233 days and was not adequately explained - CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents to uphold dismissal. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Limitation Act - Condonation of delay - Courts have no power to condone delays where sufficient cause is not demonstrated - The principle of 'dura lex sed lex' applied. (Paras 7)
Facts of the case:
The assessee, a consultant engineer, declared income of Rs.18,25,660/- but faced scrutiny which revealed discrepancies in reported long-term capital gains from plot sales. The appeal was filed late, and the assessee did not respond to notices.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed due to negligence in pursuing the case and failure to provide necessary documentation.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in filing the appeal and the substantiation of claims made by the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delays cannot be condoned without a sufficient explanation, citing established legal precedents.
Result: Appeal dismissed in limine.
ORDER
PER G. MANJUNATHA, A.M. :
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.11.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2013-2014.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a consultant engineer and also involved in developing of his own land into plots and sells them. During the year under consideration, the assessee has filed his return of income declaring income at Rs.18,25,660/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer had issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on 04.09.2014 [which was served upon the assessee on 06.09.2014], 07.05.2015, 08.02.2016 and issued summons on 18.03.2016 u/sec.131 of the Act. In response to the summons issued u/sec.131 of the Act, the assessee appeared on 24.03.2016 and his statement was recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had income from property at Rs.1,80,075 and income from profession at Rs.3,12,000 as returned besides 1/3rd share of long term capital gains. With respect to the long term capital gains, the Assessing Officer noted that during the year, the assessee, along with his two brothers sold plots at Boduppal (v) Ghatkesar (M) of Ramga Reddy District to various parties and declared sale consideration of Rs.3,09,84,000/- and offered long term capital gains of Rs.14,33,587/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called for the details of the sales. The assessee through his letter dated 24.03.2016, furnished a list of 105 plots sold for a value of Rs.9,88,78,000/-. On perusal of the list of plots sold by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that there was a difference between the returned income and the furnished figures before him and, therefore, the assessee was asked to explain the said difference. It was the submission of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he is not maintaining any books for these sales and the present particulars were furnished before Assessing Officer after obtaining figures from other brothers and the total consideration on account of sale of plots was Rs.9,88,78,000/- and after reducing the cost of acquisition i.e., Rs.73,76,738/-, the total long term capital gains worked-out at Rs.9,15,01,262/- and 1/3rd share of the assessee is at Rs.3,05,00,837/-. The assessee claimed exemption u/sec.54F at Rs.64,35,500/- in construction of house. The Assessing Officer noted that since the assessee has not invested the total sum in house construction, the proportionate deduction of Rs.59,52,837/- was only allowed and the balance sum of Rs.2,45,47,582/- treated as taxable income in the hands of the assessee after denying various expenditures made by the assessee vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .
3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 175 days and reiterated his submissions. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has issued various notices dated 27.01.2020, 23.12.2020, 09.10.2023 and 10.11.2023 to the assessee which are delivered to the email address provided by the assessee to the Department. Despite service of the above notices, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any submissions. In absence of any material brought to the notice of the learned CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee not only on technical ground of delay but also on merits.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 233 days and reiterated his submissions made before the lower authorities.
5. It was the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the assessee could not file the instant appeal before the Tribunal in time because of illness of the assessee as he was suffered with multiple injuries like disc bulge etc. and advised by t
