Statutory appeal by an aggrieved person fails where assessment rests on clear consent to valuation and no cognizable grievance survives.

A statutory appeal under Section 246A was held not maintainable where the assessee had given clear written consent to the valuation used for capital gains and no material showed that the consent was mistaken, coerced, or wrongly recorded. The court treated the appeal right as confined to a genuinely aggrieved person and noted that later cancellation of penalty proceedings did not create a surviving grievance. On that basis, the refusal to condone delay was not disturbed, and the dismissal of the appeal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessee who had expressly consented to the valuation adopted for computation of capital gains could still maintain an appeal under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as an aggrieved person; (ii) whether the appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether an assessee who had expressly consented to the valuation adopted for computation of capital gains could still maintain an appeal under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as an aggrieved person.

Analysis: The statutory right of appeal under Section 246A is confined to a person who is aggrieved. Where the assessment is founded on a clear written consent given to the valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer, and there is no material showing that the consent was wrongly recorded, coerced, or made under a mistaken understanding of law or fact, the assessee cannot be treated as aggrieved merely because penalty proceedings were later initiated. The consent related to a question of fact, namely valuation, and not to a concession on a question of law. On the facts found, the subsequent cancellation of penalty proceedings removed the only asserted basis for grievance.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to maintain the appeal as an aggrieved person.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order.

Analysis: The delay issue did not advance the appellants' case because, even apart from limitation, the substantive foundation for the appeal was absent. The court noted that the assessment was based on consent, that no sufficient grievance survived, and that the later cancellation of penalty proceedings eliminated the asserted cause for challenge. In that situation, the refusal to interfere with the finding on delay and maintainability required no correction.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay and the dismissal of the appeal were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the ground that the appellants were not aggrieved persons entitled to challenge the consent-based assessment, and the questions of law were answered against them, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal confined to an aggrieved person is not maintainable where the assessment rests on the assessee's clear consent to a factual determination and no legally cognizable grievance, mistake, or coercion is shown.

---