TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be set aside to the file of the AO for valuation of the impugned 'land sold' for determining the fair market value of such land sold on the date of transfer (i.e., 17-2-14). 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in applying stamp duty value of the land sold on 17-2-14 at Rs. 16,70,700 by applying sec 50C, without referring the matter to Departmental valuation officer, while actual sales consideration was Rs. 5,50,000; matter is liable to be set aside to the file of the AO for valuation of the impugned 'land sold' for determining the fair market value of such land sold on the date of transfer (i.e., 17-2-14). 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in applying stamp duty value of the land sold on 4-2-14 at Rs. 7,70,000 by applying sec 50C, without referring the matter to Departmental valuation officer, while actual sales consideration was Rs. 2,00,000; matter is liable to be set aside to the file of the AO for valuation of the impugned 'land sold' for determining the fair market value of such land sold on the date of transfer (i.e., 17-2-14). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13 lacs. The A.O. observed that the value of the aforesaid properties for payment of stamp duty was adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority at Rs. 41,14,000/- (in aggregate). The A.O. after allowing the deduction of the indexed cost of acquisition of the aforesaid properties of Rs. 6,44,736/- (in aggregate), determined the capital gain after declining the assessee's claim for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act at Rs. 34,69,264/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on three occasions had failed to participate in the proceedings, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was constrained to dismiss his appeal. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. 8. Shri. Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. authorized representative (for short, "A.R.") for the assessee at the threshold of hearing submitted that the present appeal is delayed by 17 days. The Ld. A.R explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal had drawn my attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the A.O. was constrained to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act. 11. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals), I find that the conduct of the assessee remained the same as was there before the A.O. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities by the first appellate authority had failed to participate in the proceedings, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) being left with no other alternative was constrained to dismiss the appeal. 12. After having been visited with an ex-parte assessment order and dismissal of his appeal before the CIT(Appeals) for non-prosecution, the assessee, who was expected to have remained vigilant and ought to have filed the present appeal within the stipulated period, however, chose to stick to his casual approach and lackadaisical conduct and delayed the filing of the same by 17 days. I may herein reiterate that the delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal may not be inordinate, but it is the casual and non-cooperative conduct that the assessee had consistently adopted regarding his income-tax matter for the subject year before both the lower authorities and also, before me by delayi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecific directions in the case of the present assessee had failed to place on record any material that would substantiate the claim of the assessee that it was due to his ill-health at the relevant point of time that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. As the facts involved in the present case are distinguishable, therefore, the same would not carry the case of the assessee further. (B) Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. ITO, ITA No.704 to 727 (Viz)/2019, 73 to 75 (Viz)/2020 dated 27.04.2021. In the aforesaid case before the Tribunal, the assessee had remained under the bonafide impression that her appeal had been filed by the accountant but had learned about the same having not been filed only when the department took recourse to recovery proceedings. It was thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the Tribunal had condoned the delay that was involved in filing the appeal by the assessee before them. However, in the present case, except for the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the delay in filing had occasioned due to his ill health, nothing had been available on record that would conclusively establish the bonafide of the said ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had condoned the same. However, in the present case, nothing had been made available on record that would conclusively establish the bonafide of explanation of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned due to his ill- health. Once again, I may herein observe that the lackadaisical approach of the assessee before the lower authorities also does not inspire any confidence as regards the veracity of the unsubstantiated reason given by him to explain the delay involved. As the facts involved in the present case is distinguishable, therefore, the same would not carry the case of the assessee further. (E) Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Roa Vs. DCIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 427 In the case before the Hon'ble High Court the assessee had on the matter having been remitted by the Pr. CIT to the file of the A.O. u/s. 263 of the Act for reframing the assessment, had failed to file the appeal against the order of revision as he had remained under a bonafide belief that now when the matter was restored to the file of the A.O for reframing the assessment, thus, the appeal was required to be filed challenging only the consequential order that would be passed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." (emphasis supplied by me) As in the case of the present assessee appellant before me, there is a delay of 17 days involved in the filing of the appeal by the assessee appellant, the reason for which he had failed to conclusively establish based on any clinching material, and the same appears to be attributable to the callous approach and lackadaisical conduct which he had adopted not only at the stage of filing of the appeal before me but also had consistently adopted before both the lower authorities, therefore, the judgment mentioned above of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (supra) would not carry his case any further. 15. I have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid facts, and would once again reiterate that though the delay in filing the appeal may not be inordinate, it is the absence of a bonafide explanation of the assessee regarding the reasons that had resulted to delay in filing the appeal; read in the backdrop of his conduct before both the lower authorities, i.e the A.O and CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering material available on record. 11. Though the AO had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to represent his case, it was the assessee who, for reasons best known to him, despite being well informed about the ongoing assessment proceedings, had not only failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the said proceedings. Also, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the notices that were served on him during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence of any return of income and also any explanation forthcoming about the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, who had chosen to lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnished any reply to the notices that were issued to him, thus, was constrained to treat the cash deposits of Rs. 34,67,700/-(supra) as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, and framed the best judgment assessment vide his order under Sections 144/147 of the Act vide its order dated 16.12.2018. Even before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey is not recorded in the books of account and fails to offer any explanation about the nature and source thereof or in case any such explanation, if offered, is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, then it may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Ultimately, therefore, it would be dependent on the nature of the explanation submitted by the assessee and the satisfaction of the AO about the acceptability thereof, which is the sine qua non for invoking the provisions contained in section 69A of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the proceedings. In absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee as regards the delay in filing of the appeal, his request for condonation of the same, when read in the backdrop of his conduct before the authorities below cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the appeal was due to bonafide reasons, as the same clearly smacks of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing o....