IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.206/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid hearing)

Shri Vikramsinh Thakorbhai Assistant Commissioner of Ravat बनाम/ Income-tax, Circle-Valsad, 208 117/Ravat Falia/ Bhutsar/ Vs. Palak Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Taluka/ Dist. Valsad-396 005 Road, Valsad-396 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ALCPR 4584 K (अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) /Respondent)

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती क(cid:551) ओर से

/Appellant by Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AR Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR राजèव क(cid:551) ओर से /Respondent by Date of Hearing 22/07/2025 सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

उ(cid:622)घोषणा क(cid:551)

तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 12.02.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)-2 Coimbatore [in short, the ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21.12.2018.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for the appeal are as under:

1. Ld. CIT(A) and ACIT has erred in law and on facts to reopen appellant’s assessment u/s.147 and issue of a notice u/s.148 of the Act by ignoring the settled law that reopening cannot be made for rowing inquiry and investigation.

2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts to direct the AO to allow development expenses incurred by the appellant after date 23.07.2010 though he has accepted the fact that the appellant gets legal holding of the property w.e.f. date 24.06.2009. Further, he had not disputed the fact that the total development cost of Rs.28,90,000/- were incurred by three joint owners of the land.”

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 316 days in filing of this appeal and an application for condonation of the delay was filed supported by an affidavit. In the aforesaid application, it is stated by the assessee that the delay occurred on account of misguidance of assessee’s regular tax advisor, Shri Arshabhai F. Nanabhai of Valsad. Subsequently, on the advice of his present tax consultant, Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, appeal has been filed by the assessee immediately. It is stated by the assessee that delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal was unintentional and that assessee is in no way benefitted on account of the delay in filing appeal. Ld. Sr. DR for revenue submitted that the Bench may decide the preliminary issue as it thinks fit.

3.1 After hearing both the parties, we note that delay in filing appeal by the appellant is not deliberate and intentional. The revenue has also no objection if the application for condonation is favourably considered. Hence, the request for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2011-12. As per the information available with the department, the assessee had invested Rs.5,00,000/- in Mutual Funds. The assessee alongwith other two Co-owners namely, Shir Dineshbhai V. Patel and Shri Abdulmanan Hasambhai Belam had also purchased immovable property of Rs.35,50,000/- from Narmada International Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the said immovable property was sold during the year amounting to Rs.67,51,000/- to Shrimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Satsang Sadhna Kendra, Mohangarh, Dharampur. Since the assessee had not filed return of income, source of investment in mutual funds and the property and capital gain on sale of said immovable property could not be verified regarding taxability of income. Therefore, the case was reopened and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2018. In response to the same, assessee filed his r