AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1722 days, for which the condonation petition along with affidavit dated 26.04.2024 was also filed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to the wrong advice of the counsel, the assessee could not file the appeal against the revisionary order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the revisionary order was passed by ld. CIT (A) on 18.03.2019. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the said order u/s 263 of the Act was handed over to the Counsel of the assessee Shri PJ Bhide, FCA, who appeared in the set aside proceeding before the ld. AO and the assessment order u/s 143(3)/ 263 of the Act came to be passed on 12.12.2019. The ld. AR submitted that the appeal w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record, we find that in this case, the assessee has not filed the appeal against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.03.2019, under the advice of the Counsel Shri P.J. Bhide. Thereafter the assessment was completed in the set aside proceeding vide order dated 12.12.2019, passed u/s 143(3)/ 263 of the Act, against which was appealed before the first appellate authority on 16.01.2020 and finally, the appellate order came to be passed on 31.10.2023. The assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal on 21.12.2023, against the said appellate order. It is only then the assessee was advised by the Counsel Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate to file an appeal against the revisionary order dated 18.03.2019, should be preferred along wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on examination of the assessment record found that the ld. AO had completed the assessment without making necessary enquiry/ verification and thus, failed to bring on record the Short-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 30,36,003/- by accepting the assessee's claim of Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,12,278/-. The ld. PCIT noted that the ld. AO has wrongly allowed ADSR (Assistant District Sub-Registrar) value of Rs. 41,39,900/- as cost of acquisition against the actual cost of Rs. 23,27,257/- in calculation of Long-Term Capital Gain. Accordingly, the order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 08.02.2019, as to why the impugned assessment framed should not be revised which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee in the light of applicable laws. 09. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee has entered into a purchase agreement dated 15.09.2009 for purchase of flat which was handed over to the assessee physically on 15.09.2010. We note that the assessee has made all the payments towards the purchase of flat prior to the date of possession. The said flat was registered in the name of the assessee on 12.12.2011. During the year, the assessee sold the flat 17.09.2013, calculating the Long-Term Capital Gain thereon at Rs. 4,12,278/-. The ld. PCIT on the other hand was of the view that the purchase date should be taken from the registration of the agreement in fav....