IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Commissioner of Income Tax

2/201, Surbhi Apartment, (Appeals), Dafatry Road, vs. NFAC, Delhi Malad East, Mumbai-400097.

PAN : AADPP5454C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Ms. Mansi Joshi For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR (virtually present)

Date of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025

O R D E R

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 30-07-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material placed on record, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,75,730/- on 29-03-2019. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) were issued. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and thereafter, the AO proceeded and passed the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dt. 20-04-2021. As per the AO, basis information available with the Department, the assessee has entered into two transactions relating to sale and purchase of immoveable property, wherein the difference between transaction value and the registered value comes to Rs. 31,62,000/-. As per the AO in both the cases, the transaction value is less than stamp duty value and, therefore, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are clearly attracted as the assessee has sold immoveable property at sale consideration less than the stamp duty value and in absence of any submissions and supporting documentary evidences, the AO proceeded to tax the sum of Rs. 31,62,000/- u/s. 50C of the Act. The assessee, thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on account of limitation. It was submitted that the assessee has moved an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), however, the same has not been considered and the Ld.CIT(A) has proceeded and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was further submitted that no specific show cause notice has been issued to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and due to his health issues which significantly impaired his ability to focus on and attend to complex tax compliance matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. It was also submitted that it was during the Covid period that the assessment order was passed by the AO and due to the national lock-down on account of Covid pandemic, the appeal could not be filed in time before the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that without taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

5. It was further submitted that the AO has brought to tax the difference between the transaction value and stamp duty value and has invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has in fact sold the property vide agreement dt. 08-05-2017 and has purchased a property vide agreement dt. 30-05-2017.