Tribunal adjusts capital gains, emphasizes joint ownership recognition. Errors corrected, tax liability adjusted.

The tribunal partially allowed the appeals by condoning the delay in filing and directing the deletion of additions made by the AO under the head capital gain. It emphasized adherence to section 55A provisions and the recognition of joint ownership in the property. The tribunal found errors in the computation of long-term capital gains and jurisdictional issues, leading to adjustments in the tax liability of the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Delay in filing appeals.
2. Addition of Rs. 1,52,96,645/- under the head capital gain by replacing cost of acquisition.
3. Computation of 100% LTCG in appellant's hand despite only 25% share in the property.
4. Jurisdictional issue regarding passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 without issuing mandatory notice u/s 143(2).

Detailed Analysis

1. Delay in Filing Appeals
The appeals were delayed by 253 days due to administrative lapses by the previous representative. The assessee changed the authorized representative and filed the appeals late. The delay was condoned as the tribunal found sufficient reason for the delay.

2. Addition of Rs. 1,52,96,645/- under the Head Capital Gain by Replacing Cost of Acquisition
The assessee declared the cost of acquisition based on a valuation report dated 1 April 1981 at Rs. 365 per square meter, leading to an indexed cost of Rs. 2,45,05,168/-. The AO, however, determined the cost at Rs. 142 per square meter, leading to an indexed cost of Rs. 95,33,505/- and a long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,52,96,645/-. The tribunal found that the AO erred by not referring the matter to the DVO under section 55A and instead using sales instances that were not comparable. The tribunal held that the AO had no power to substitute the value determined by the registered valuer as per the provisions of section 55A applicable for the year under consideration. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.

3. Computation of 100% LTCG in Appellant's Hand Despite Only 25% Share in the Property
The tribunal noted that the property was jointly held by the assessee and co-owners, with the assessee holding only a 25% share. The tribunal found that the authorities below erred in taxing the entire amount of capital gain in the hands of the assessee. The tribunal directed that only the assessee's share of the capital gain should be taxed.

4. Jurisdictional Issue Regarding Passing Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 Without Issuing Mandatory Notice u/s 143(2)
The assessee did not press this additional ground of appeal, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

Separate Judgments for Other Appeals
For ITA No. 144/Ahd/2019 and ITA No. 142/Ahd/2019, the issues were similar to those in ITA No. 143/Ahd/2019. The tribunal applied the same findings and directed the AO to delete the additions made by replacing the cost of acquisition based on the valuation report. The other grounds of appeal were dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion
The tribunal allowed the appeals partly, condoning the delay in filing and directing the deletion of additions made by the AO under the head capital gain. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of adhering to the provisions of section 55A and the importance of recognizing the joint ownership in the property.

---