2021 (11) TMI 1016 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal of the assessee as time barred by 1969 days - assessee also contended that since it was an addition made u/s 50C by assuming the sale consideration equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid; therefore it was necessary to ascertain the true value of the property u/s 50C(2) - there were co-owners in whose cases a valuation report was called for from the DVO and they were waiting the outcome of those appeals - HELD THAT - This application does not disclose any reason for not challenging the order of the CIT(A) - This exercise was going on in the case of other co-owners and, therefore, the assessee did not file the appeal. When the appeals of the other co-owners have been decided, the assessee also thought to file the appeal. We are not impressed by all these contentions. It is the assessee who should have taken vigilant step in his own case. Assessee could file application before the AO u/s 50C(2) - He could raise plea before the learned CIT(A), but after the decision of the learned CIT(A), he has accepted the result and did not chose to file the appeal for long six years. There is hardly any plausible explanation for this delay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the explanation for condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. Application u/s 154 - sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain - in one of the co-owner s case, a reference was made to the Valuation Officer who determined the value of the property - For doing the complete justice to an assessee, the learned First Appellate Authority ought to have treated it as an apparent error. Each co-owner should have been treated at par. It is pertinent to observe that the quasi-judicial authorities are being respected not on account of their powers to legalize the injustice on technical ground, but for their capabilities of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In the present case, the learned First Appellate Authority failed to remove the injustice with the assessee. We deem it that there was an apparent error available on record. The valuation report is in existence though in the case of other assessees and, in the moment it is brought to the notice of the learned CIT(A), it should have taken cognizance of that report. Considering that aspect of the matter, we allow the application of the assessee moved under Section 154 of the Act and set aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2019. The error committed in the order dated 26.08.2013 is rectified. The Assessing Officer is directed to take sale consideration in the hands of the assessee equivalent to the amount taken in the case of Prakash Chunilal Shah and Chirag Prakash Shah. Though we have not interfered in the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 26.08.2013 because the appeal was time barred before us, but by rectifying the error, which is a proceeding well taken by the assessee within the limitation, the assessee is able to achieve the same result.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against time-barred order by the assessee.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Apparent error in the order of the learned CIT(A).

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to ITA No.593/Ahd/2019 where the appeal by the assessee was against the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.08.2013. The assessee sought condonation of delay of 1969 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay inadequate as the assessee failed to challenge the CIT(A) order promptly. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should have taken proactive steps in his own case, such as filing an application under Section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act or raising a plea before the CIT(A). Due to the lack of a plausible explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

2. Moving on to the second issue in ITA No.592/Ahd/2019, the assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act pointing out an apparent error in the CIT(A) order. The case involved the sale of a property by nine co-owners, each receiving a share. The valuation report from the District Valuation Officer (DVO) determined a significantly lower value compared to the value adopted under Section 50C. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to treat this as an apparent error and rectify the injustice with the assessee. By allowing the application under Section 154, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the sale consideration in the hands of the assessee equivalent to the amount in the case of other co-owners. This rectification allowed the assessee to achieve a favorable outcome, even though the appeal was time-barred.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in ITA No.593/Ahd/2019 due to being time-barred, while allowing the appeal in ITA No.592/Ahd/2019 by rectifying the apparent error in the CIT(A) order. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely action by the assessee and the obligation of quasi-judicial authorities to rectify injustices, ultimately ensuring a fair outcome for the taxpayer.