, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 854/Ind/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, ITO-3(5)

112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore /

बनाम Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs.

Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent)

PAN: AAYPY9432A Assessee by Shri Venus Rawka, AR Revenue by Shri Anoop Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.12.2017 passed by ITO, 3(5), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following effective grounds:

“1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts of the case and confirmed the assessed total income at Rs.3,10,13,610/- under section 143(3) of the Income TaxAct1961 as againstthe return income atRs.49,130/-.

2.Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts ofthe case and confirmed the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, at Rs.3,09,64,475/- without considering full facts and reasoning. The addition made is totally wrongand illegalon the facts ofthe case.”

2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 157 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained (i) that the assessee is an agriculturist and not adequately educated and that is why mentioned “No” against “Whether notices/ communication may be sent on mail?” in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A). Despite this, the notices of hearing as well as order of first- appeal were sent by CIT(A) on the e-mail; (ii) that neither the notices nor the order of first-appeal have been served physically upon the assessee; and (iii) that it is when the Income-tax Department initiated recovery proceedings against assessee that the assessee searched the matter and came to know about the impugned order having been passed ex-parte by CIT(A). Immediately, the assessee filed present appeal on 04.12.2024 without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. On merit of appeal, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has assessed capital gain in the hands of assessee from sale of land without giving exemption u/s 54B but the assessee was 1/3^rd co-sharer in the impugned capital gain and assessee’s brother “Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav” was another co-sharer having 1/3^rd share and the case of assessee’s brother having identical facts and controversy has already been decided by ITAT, Indore. Therefore, the asessee’s case is well covered by decision of ITAT, Indore and having full merit. Ld. DR for Revenue expressed no objection against condonation of delay and left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and t