2014 (7) TMI 757 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Delay of 599 days Change of jurisdiction - Held that - The Department did not file the appeals within due time in the case and cause shown by it does not conclusively show that same is reasonable or sufficient - it has been already decided in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment year that State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual because individual would be quick in taking the decision whereas Government machinery, there is impersonal mechanism through its officers or servants but position here is not the same as it was not a case of similar nature and no such plea has been raised nor any reason or material in this direction has been pleaded or filed and Department has just sought condonation of delay, cannot be held to be a sufficient or reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within stipulated time thus, the application for condonation of delay having been rejected Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over indexed cost of acquisition of property.
2. Delay in filing the appeal.

Indexed Cost of Acquisition Dispute:
The Department filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2005-06, challenging the deletion of an addition made by the AO regarding the indexed cost of acquisition of a property in New Delhi. The AO had used a rate of Rs. 533 per Sq. Yard, while the CIT(A) adopted a rate of Rs. 2400 per Sq. Yard for commercial property. The Department contended that the fair market value should have been based on residential property rates. The Tribunal considered a similar case where the appeal was dismissed due to delay.

Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Department sought condonation of a 599-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the transfer of jurisdiction over the case. The delay was unintentional and beyond the immediate knowledge of the AO. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right and can be circumscribed by conditions. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, citing that the Department did not file the appeal within due time, and the reasons provided were not considered sufficient. As the delay was not condoned, the appeal was dismissed for limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal due to the delay in filing, which was not condoned. The dispute over the indexed cost of acquisition was also addressed, with the Tribunal upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) based on the rate used for commercial property valuation. The appeal was dismissed for limitation, and the order was pronounced on 22.05.2014.