IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1301/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2003-04)

Jaiprakash L. Singh Vs. ITO – 31(2)(1)

Khwaish, Laxmi Singh 615, 6^th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Estate, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W) – 400062 PAN/GIR No. AACPS4994F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue by Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT Ld.DR Date of Hearing 14.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 26.09.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2003-

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the proceedings initiated by issuance of notice U/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid and bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act is invalid and bad in law..and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in upholding the same. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Opportunity of being heard was not taken before the CIT (A).

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned A.O erred in determining the income at Rs.47,31,73,860/-. and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in upholding the same

5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned A.O erred in adding an amount of Rs.6,37,93,770/-as 'consideration received by the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08' and assessing the same as capital gains income for the A.Y. 2003-04, although the same income has been retuned and assessed as income in the A.Y. 2007-08 and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in upholding the same.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned A.O erred in adding an amount of Rs. 3,14,91,030/- as consideration taken by the A.O. in A.Y. 2008-09 on sale of owned flats in Ozone and assessing the same as capital gains income for the A.Y. 2003-04, although the same income has been retuned and assessed as income in the A.Y. 2008-09 and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in uphelding the same.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned A.O erred in adding an amount of Rs.38,99,61,600/- as consideration taken by the A.O. in A.Y. 2008-09 on sale of flat//shop/pent houses and assessing the same as capital gains income for the A.Y. 2003-04, although the same income was assessed as income in the A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 25-03- 2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 & 147 of the act and was deleted by the learned C.I.T.(A) vide order dated 17-02-2015 and the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the deletion by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Condonation of Delay in filling of appeal is plead.

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the interest charged of u/s.234A,234B,234C of the IT Act is invalid and bad in law and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in uphelding the same.

10. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and / or modify any or all of the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at the time of hearing or at any time before the date of hearing.

2. There is a delay in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee supported by an affidavit. It was submitted that notice and communications regarding the said matter were served via online portal of the Income Tax department and the assessee being senior citizen was unable to assess the email on which the notices were sent, therefore could not come to know regarding the passing of the order by Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee, therefore cons