9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file give suitable replies to the respondents, but, the said Power of Attorney did not respond to the notices properly, which resulted in the impugned orders passed against the petitioner. HELD THAT:- Petitioner, being an unlettered and also a non-tax payer, was ignorant of any of the notices/communications which were sent by the respondent-Income Tax Department through online Portal only when the recovery proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner became aware of the impugned proceedings. Though Respondents raised strong objection to the plea taken by the petitioner by stating that ''Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat , since the petitioner is common plebian, there wouldn't have been any occasion for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd his sister sold a vacant land through their Power of Attorney to and in favour of one Mr.Herain G.Karmavat, at the higher rate, i.e to the extent of Rs. 60,30,000/- on 20.09.2012 and the sale proceeds were equally shared by them, but, the Income Tax Department issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.05.2023, to show cause as to why, a sum of Rs. 65,40,000/- being the sale consideration received on the sale of the immovable property should be assessed as income from short term capital gain. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner is an illiterate and do not know online filing of replies to the assessment, etc., in this regard, the petitioner relied on the Power of Attorney Agent to file give suitable replies to the respondents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6. On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner along with his sister sold out a vacant land for a total consideration of Rs. 60,30,000/-, and that the sale proceeds were equally shared between the petitioner and his sister; that so far as the petitioner's amount is concerned, the same was utilized by the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a residential house within the prescribed limitation period under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, hence, there was no capital gains tax attracted towards the sale of the vacant land, however, the respondent, Income Tax Department issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.05.2023, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2021, therefore, the petitioner, being a non-tax payer, cannot be expected to view the Portal after a lapse of 8 eight years. Thus, the reasons assigned by the petitioner for not responding to the communications sent by the respondent- Department is genuine and reasonable. 8. Thus, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to set aside the impugned orders, as the same were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, however, the same subject to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the Advocate Clerk Association, High Court. 9. Accordingly, this Court passes the following orders:- i) The impugned order dated 26.05.2023 and consequential order dated 12.03.2024 are set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
