आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ (cid:7008)यायपीठ, च(cid:7382)े ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:7088)ी मन ु कुमार िग(cid:7407)र, (cid:7008)याियक सद(cid:7021)य एवं (cid:7088)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:7021)य के सम(cid:6979)

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष (cid:6981) / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner of No. 15, 5^th Main Road, v. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1.

Adyar – 600 020.

[PAN: ARBPS-4782-R]

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर स/ेAppellant by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर स/े Respondent by : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश O R D E R /

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide order dated 07.03.2024.

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 73 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons stating that the assessee was unable to track the revisionary order which caused the delay in filing of appeal. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law due to not aware of passing the order u/s.263 of the Act and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 is erroneous on the procedural aspects involved in the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed.

2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in failing to appreciate that order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 144B on 30.03.2022, is not erroneous when the issue of invoking the provisions of sec.50 was not a subject matter of deliberation in the impugned order set-aside u/s.263.

3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in failing to appreciate that the time limit to revise the order passed u/s.143(3) on 29.12.2016, which dealt the issue of enforcing the provisions of sec.50C, ended on 31.03.2019, and the order passed by the Pr. CIT on 07.03.2024 is barred by limitation.

4. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in ignoring the principles enunciated by various Courts, that the original assessment order cannot be revised in the pretense of revising the subsequent reassessment order.

5. That the appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend or vary and/or withdraw any or all of the aforesaid grounds of Appeal or at time of hearing of the above appeal.”

4. The Assessee is an individual had filed the Return of Income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 20.01.2015 admitting a taxable income of Rs.7,24,870/-, in which the income from long term capital loss was computed at Rs.7,28,987/- by treating the actual sale consideration received on transfer of two immovable properties.

i. In the computation of total income, the sale consideration in respect of Property No.1 sold on 01.10.2013 was taken at Rs.17,89,000/- and in respect of the other property sold on 01.12.2013, the actual consideration of Rs.38,15,000/- was adopted to compute the Long term capital loss.

ii. The Return of Income was taken up for scrutiny and subsequently the order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2016 by the ACIT, Circle-2(1), Salem arriving at a taxable income of Rs.86,36,104/-.

iii. The assessing officer, during the course of assessment proceedings had substituted the guideline value of the property sold to be Rs.1,04,04,000/- and Rs.32,85,000/- fo