आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट (cid:586)ायपीठ, राजकोट।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC”

RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.522/RJT/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष/(cid:91) Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat ITO Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, बनाम/

Ward 2 (3), Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Vs Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AZFPK8009B ( अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant) (

(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)

/Respondent)

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती क(cid:551) ओर स/े Assessee by : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. AR राजèव क(cid:551) ओर स/े Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख /Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख /Date of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 21.03.2025, arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”)

relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal. However, the solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) erred in not to consider the basic fact that the assessee has gifted the property to his sister in law (younger brother's wife) that is, to a relative for a consideration of Rs. 4,90,000/- dated 09.07.2015, therefore, when the property is sold for a value lower than the stamp duty value of the property, than, in that case, provisions of Section 50C is not applicable, as it is a gift to the relative, which is exempt from tax, and therefore, the addition made of Rs.

11,93,673/- u/s 50C, is against the provisions of the law.

3. The appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17 is barred by limitation by 80 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that order passed by the CIT(A) never reached to the assessee because the online portal displays E-mail Address and Mobile Number which belonged to the "Tax Return Preparer, who did not inform to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee received physically penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 29.06.2025 wherein it was mentioned "you had preferred appeal which has been disposed of by the 1st appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A)." On perusal of this notice, the assessee immediately approached the consultant. Therefore, in this process, the delay of 80 days has occurred, which may kindly be condoned.

4. Learned DR for the revenue submitted that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Hence, delay should not be condoned.

5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I have gone through the contents of the petition for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A) and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned in filing the appeal.

6.Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee has e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs.2,41,110/- and agriculture